Calvert Energy from Waste Plant Calvert Landfill, Buckinghamshire Technical Appendix 11/2 Great Crested Newt Survey Report Waste Recycling Group

Transcription

1 Calvert Energy from Waste Plant Calvert Landfill, Buckinghamshire Technical Appendix 11/2 Great Crested Newt Survey Report Waste Recycling Group February 2009 Ref:

2 WRG i CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Site Background Legislative Background SURVEY METHODOLOGY Amphibian Survey Methods Timings, Personnel and Weather Conditions Pond Habitat Suitability Index RESULTS Habitats Amphibian Survey Habitat Suitability Index INTERPRETATION AND EVALUATION PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS SUMMARY CLOSURE TABLES Table 1 Weather Conditions of Survey Nights... 4 Table 2 Lagoon Descriptions... 5 Table 3 Survey Results for Other Amphibians... 8 Table 4 HSI Values... 9 DRAWINGS Drawing 1 Waterbody Locations APPENDICIES Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Method Statement for Great Crested Newt EPS Licence for IVC Plant. Great Crested Newt Survey Results

3 WRG INTRODUCTION Waste Recycling Group (WRG) has retained Consulting () to undertake great crested newt (GCN) surveys within their landholding at Calvert Landfill, Calvert, Buckinghamshire. These surveys have been commissioned to support a proposed planning application for an Energy from Waste Plant (EfW) within land to the south-east of the active landfill. 1.1 Site Background The landholding for WRG at Calvert landfill includes the active household waste landfill, part of which has already been capped and restored. The site was formerly worked by the London Brick Company to extract Lower Oxford Clay to make bricks. It has been owned by WRG since The site accepts the majority of its waste by rail. To the north-west of the active landfill is an area of land around Dunsty Hill Farm which is currently grazed by cattle. To the south-east and south-west of the active landfill, around Upper Greatmoor Farm, is an area of land currently in agricultural use part of which is used for arable purposes and part of which has been left as rough grassland. Part of this land, close to the now-demolished Moor Farm, has been consented as an In-Vessel Composting (IVC) facility. A further area of land north of the railway is also within WRG s landholding and is predominately used as arable land. See Drawing 1 for the locations of the farms mentioned. The area of land to be surveyed included eleven ponds within the active landfill including small shallow pools (ponds 4, 9-11 & 22) in addition to larger waterbodies (ponds 7, 13 &14). Three ponds were identified within the land at Dunsty Hill Farm, with a further pond noted to which access could not be arranged. Four ponds were located to the north of the railway line with six ponds being identified close to the site of the proposed EfW at Upper Greatmoor Farm. A total of 24 ponds were identified. The presence of great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) was reported from land within WRGs landholding where a GCN licensed mitigation scheme was being undertaken on behalf of The Composting Company within WRGs landholding. Subsequently it was reported by the landfill manager, Will Fairham, that surveys had previously been undertaken in 2006 by Scott Wilson on behalf of WRG, which confirmed the presence of great crested newts within the pools on Pit 4 (referred to as Ponds 4, 9-11 & 22 in this survey). Formal survey is therefore required to assess the presence and population status of this species across the site. Details of the NE EPS licence method statement for great crested newts being undertaken during 2008 on behalf of The Composting Company Limited by Clive Herbert of the Amphibian, Reptile & Mammal Conservation Limited was not available until after the surveys by had been completed. It was known that great crested newts had been identified. The results of the surveys undertaken during 2006 and 2007 are presented here. A total of four ponds were surveyed during 2006 and 2007, only one of these was within the application boundary for the IVC plant. A low number of great crested newts was identified to be using terrestrial habitat within the IVC application boundary. Breeding great crested newts were also identified within a pond, referred to as pond 18 in this survey with further breeding newts identified within a pond at SP As this national grid reference does not relate to a pond, this could refer to pond 19 or 20 from this survey. A small to medium population was identified at these ponds, which were considered to be the source of the individuals identified within the IVC application boundary. The individuals captured during the implementation of the method statement were released into terrestrial habitat within the boundary of the IVC landholding, predominantly habitat close to pond 6 (from the survey). Further details of this survey are available in Appendix 1.

4 WRG has been retained to undertake great crested newt surveys of the water bodies within WRG s landholding, concentrating on those water bodies within 500m of the proposed EfW plant and proposed access routes. Additional survey works were commissioned by the landfill manager at Calvert Landfill to clarify the current situation regarding great crested newts at the landfill. The results of all these surveys are presented within this report. 1.2 Legislative Background Great crested newts, commonly known as a European Protected Species (EPS), are listed on Annex II and IV of the EEC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora, receiving protection under The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (amended 2007). This species is also afforded full protection under the Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA 1981). Under such legislation it is an offence to: intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a great crested newt; possess or control any live or dead specimen or anything derived from a great crested newt; intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection by a great crested newt; and intentionally or recklessly disturb a great crested newt while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. To undertake surveys for great crested newt it is necessary to hold an appropriate licence issued by Natural England.

5 WRG SURVEY METHODOLOGY Twenty-four ponds within the site were subject to great crested newt survey. OS data and a walkover survey did not identify further ponds to be surveyed. 2.1 Amphibian Survey Methods The great crested newt mitigation guidelines 1 (English Nature 2, 2001), provide an industry standard survey methodology for this species; a method that is accepted by Natural England, DEFRA and Local Authority Ecologists. Under these guidelines, it is recommended that at least four survey visits be undertaken at a site to assess for the presence/absence of great crested newt in a water body. If great crested newt is recorded, a further two visits are normally required to assess the size class of the population. The guidelines set-out a time table for these visits; mid-march and Mid-June with at least half being undertaken in the peak time of mid-april to mid-may. The survey methods recommended by these guidelines include night-time torch counts, overnight bottle trapping, terrestrial hand searching, netting and egg searches. It is accepted that in some instances it may not, due to the nature of the site, be possible to practically undertake all of those techniques outlined above or some techniques may simply not be appropriate. For each of the survey nights, at least three of the above survey methodologies were used, with torch count survey undertaken on all survey visits. In addition to surveys of the waterbodies; hand searching of suitable daytime refuges was also undertaken. 2.2 Timings, Personnel and Weather Conditions As recommended in the guidelines, a total of six night-time visits were made to each of the ponds supporting great crested newts between mid-march and Mid-June. The surveys were led by Dr Andrea Wilcockson (Natural England Licence no ), Steve Judge ( ), Andy Law ( ) or Martyn Macefield ( ) and assisted by other members of staff. All surveys were carried out during suitable weather conditions, as described in Table 1. 1 English Nature Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines August Now Natural England.

6 WRG Date Table 1 Weather Conditions of Survey Nights Weather Conditions 28/04/08 Maximum night time temp 10 C, dry 29/04/08 Maximum night time temp 10 C, clear and warm 06/05/08 Maximum night time temp 18 C, dry 15/05/08 Maximum night time temp 12 C, heavy rain 16/05/08 Maximum night time temp 11 C, light drizzle 20/05/08 Maximum night time temp 10 C, dry 22/05/08 Maximum night time temp 14 C, dry 03/06/08 Maximum night time temp 9-11 C, dry 04/06/08 Maximum night time temp 9-11 C, dry 09/06/08 Maximum night time temp 16, clear and dry 10/06/08 Maximum night time temp 9-11 C, dry 11/06/08 Maximum night time temp 9-11 C, dry 2.3 Pond Habitat Suitability Index All 24 ponds were also assessed under the guidelines of the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) 3, a tool for evaluating the suitability of aquatic habitat to support great crested newts. This assessment uses a number of factors (presence of fish/waterfowl, amount of macrophyte cover, etc) to assess the overall likelihood that the waterbody would be suitable to support great crested newts. 3 Oldham et al 2000 Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt. Herpetological Journal, Vol. 10 pp

7 WRG RESULTS 3.1 Habitats The active landfill area is composed of an area of active landfilling (namely Pit 5), an area which has been capped and restored to semi-improved grassland (Pit 4), and an area of previously worked pit, namely Pit 6. The habitat in Pit 6 is composed of bare ground with large waterbodies within it. In addition within the active landfill area there is an area of woodland with surface water lagoons close to the site offices, with further large waterbodies present to the north of Pit 4 surrounded by a mix of woodland and reedbed habitat. The remaining habitat within WRGs landholding is split into three areas. The farmland around Dunsty Hill Farm to the north-west of the active landfill currently comprises cattle grazed pasture with mature managed hedgerows surrounding them. To the south-east and south-west of the landfill is the area identified for the proposed EfW close to Upper Greatmoor Farm. This farmland is either used for arable purposes or has been left as rough semi-improved grassland. The fields are predominately surrounded by mature hedgerows/tree lines. A third habitat area is present north of the railway line, these fields are predominantly used for arable purposes and are surrounded by mature managed hedgerows with occasional small woodland copses also present. For the purpose of the survey 24 discrete water bodies both within the site were identified for survey. A description of each water body is provided in Table 2 with its location shown on Drawing 1. Table 2 Lagoon Descriptions Pond Description Small pond partially shaded on one side by hedgerow, water depth of approximately 20cm. Marginal and aquatic vegetation included lesser bulrush (Typha angustifolia), water starwort (Callitriche spp.), pondweed (Potamogeton spp.), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) and water mint (Mentha aquatica). Aquatic and marginal vegetation covered approximately 75% of the water surface. Small pond completely shaded by trees, shallow with heavy leaf litter at the base of the pond. Aquatic and marginal vegetation was absent. An abandoned tractor was present in the water. Shallow area of standing water, water depth heavily influenced by the amount of rainfall no more than 5cm in depth. Marginal vegetation included soft-rush (Juncus effusus). Shallow area of standing water within an area of bare ground close to the edge of the active landfill. Aquatic vegetation was limited to algae. Shallow pond of no more than 1m in diameter, aquatic and marginal vegetation was generally absent, although soft-rush was present occasionally. Water depth and extent of the waterbody was heavily influenced by rainfall and surface water run-off. Narrow ditch with limited standing water, approximately 1m in width and 25m in length. The ditch was choked with lesser bulrush with water mint being occasional and disappeared into a small area of woodland. Large area of standing water, very silty and murky with poor visibility. No aquatic or marginal vegetation was present. The banks surrounding the pond were generally devoid of vegetation and composed of spoil. Nesting swans were present on the banks above the water.

8 WRG Four small waterbodies, which were being pumped dry at the time of surveying. Access to the water of two was not possible due to the steepness of the banks above the water. The waterbodies were devoid of aquatic and marginal vegetation. Shallow pond/flooded area on restored landfill site. Up to 10cm deep. Aquatic and marginal species included lesser bulrush, jointed rush (Juncus articulatus) and sharp flowered rush (Juncus acutiflores).. Shallow pond/flooded area on area of restored landfill. Depth of water was heavily influenced by pumping and surface water run-off and for many of the surveys was dry. Areas of open water were limited and lesser bulrush was abundant. Small shallow flooded area on restored landfill approximately 2m by 1m in size. With aquatic and marginal vegetation including lesser bulrush, soft-rush, algae and water starwort. Two adjacent surface water run-off siltation lagoons in an area of woodland. Part of the southern one is lined with concrete. The water surface of the remainder of the southern and the northern pond was heavily choked with duckweed. Aquatic and marginal species included lesser bulrush. Large open waterbody with trees surrounding much of the water body. Predominately open water with limited marginal vegetation generally dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis), soft-rush and water mint. The banks in places had been heavily poached by geese and other species of waterfowl. Large waterbody with limited open water, composed of a network of channels and small areas of open water predominately choked with common reed. Narrow ditch approximately 1m in width and 15m in length, depth and rate of flow appeared to vary due to surface water run-off/rainfall. Aquatic/marginal vegetation included lesser bulrush. Deep waterbody with shallow margins in cattle grazed semi-improved grassland field. Areas of open water were limited. Marginal and aquatic vegetation was abundant and included water mint, water starwort and water plantain. Deep waterbody with shallow margins in cattle grazed semi-improved grassland. Margins were heavily poached by cattle. Vegetation included floating sweet-grass (Glyceria fluitans). Shallow waterbody, water depth of no more than 5-8cm, within an area of woodland/hedgerow, shaded on all four sides by trees. No aquatic or marginal vegetation was present. The bottom of the pond had a thick layer of leaf litter. Small linear waterbody with woodland along one side. Areas of open water were present. Aquatic and marginal species included great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), fool s parsley (Aethusa cynapium) and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum). Small waterbody at the corner of an arable field. Areas of open water were not abundant although some were present. Aquatic and marginal vegetation included brooklime (Veronica beccabunga), water mint, floating sweet-grass and lesser bulrush. The pond had relatively shallow banks. Garden pond of approximately 5m by 2m in size in an area of amenity grassland. Aquatic and marginal vegetation included water lily (Nymphaeaceae spp.), yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), algae and duckweed (Lemna minor). Small area of standing water on area of restored landfill. Areas of open water were very limited as the area was broadly composed of common reed. Water depth was no greater than 5cm. Surrounded on three sides by woodland, area of open water was limited by the density of aquatic/marginal vegetation which included abundant lesser bulrush and water mint. Full access to the pond was limited by the woodland around the margins of the pond. Small shallow water body shaded on two sides by woodland/hedgerow. Aquatic and marginal vegetation was limited. Full access was limited due to the presence of a barbed wire fence.

9 WRG Amphibians spend much of their year on land utilising areas that provide good foraging habitat and safe cover. It is thought that suitable terrestrial habitats for amphibians exist predominantly outside of the landfill boundary and include the surrounding hedgerows, tree lines and rough grassland. Areas of grazed pasture or arable fields, such as those including the proposed EfW site and those fields west of the railway line, are less suitable since they have a shorter sward. Suitable terrestrial habitat is therefore present immediately to the west of the landfill near ponds 3, 5 and 6 where areas of rough grassland and scrub are present, although a percentage of this will be lost due to the consented development of the IVC plant. Terrestrial habitat is also present within the landfill boundary to the north-west, around ponds where rough grassland, woodland, swamp and marshy grassland are present. Suitable terrestrial habitat in the form of hedgerows and small copses of woodland is also available around the ponds at Dunsty Hill Farm (ponds & 24) with further suitable habitat available north of the railway line where ponds & 23 are located. North of the railway line suitable habitat exists in the form of areas of rough grassland, field margins, small woodland copses and hedgerows. 3.2 Amphibian Survey Torch counts were undertaken at all ponds, described in Table 1 above. These were then systematically surveyed on four night time survey visits, with a further two surveys being undertaken if great crested newts were recorded. During all survey visits, accessible aquatic vegetation and leaf litter was searched for the presence of newt eggs. In addition artificial egg-strips were employed within ponds 7 and 12. The nature of the waterbodies (steep, slippery banks and deep water) meant that it was not considered safe to set bottle traps within ponds 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 or 24. The remaining ponds were bottle trapped (ponds 1, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23), except for those where full access could be gained but it was not considered necessary to undertake bottle trapping. The results of the surveys are presented in Appendix 1; it should be noted that due to problems with safe access it was not possible to survey ponds 16, 17 and 24 on all six visits, however they were each surveyed five times. Due to the number of ponds to be surveyed within WRGs landholding the visits were spread over 12 nights, ensuring that all ponds were visited either four or six times, except ponds 16, 17 and 24. It is considered however that enough survey effort has been expended to ensure that an accurate and representative view on the distribution and population size class of the great crested newts at this site has been achieved. In brief, great crested newts were recorded from thirteen of the ponds, four of which are within the landfill boundary. No ponds within the proposed EfW application boundary were found to currently support a population of great crested newts. In addition, anecdotal evidence from another ecological consultant confirmed the presence of great crested newts in pond 15 as well. From the work being done at the IVC plant it is known that there is a population of great crested newts around pond 6. The peak count for all ponds surveyed within WRGs landholding was 20. Great crested newts were confirmed to be breeding within ponds 1, 11, 16, 17, 20 and 23. It is not thought that great crested newts were breeding in ponds 7 or 8 although, due to the nature of the waterbodies present, full access to the ponds was not possible and therefore the possibility remains that great crested newts could be using these ponds for breeding.

10 WRG Table 3 illustrates the results for the other amphibian species recorded during the surveys. Common frog (Rana temporia), smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) and palmate newt (Lissotriton helveticus) were recorded. Table 3 Survey Results for Other Amphibians Pond Number Peak Counts 1 5 male smooth newts 1 male 4 & 1 female smooth newt 2 1 male palmate 3 3 male & four female smooth newts 4 None 5 3 male & 5 female smooth newts, 6 frogs 6 2 female smooth newts 7 3 female smooth newts, 1 frog 8 10 male & 19 female smooth newts 9 2 male & 3 female smooth newts 10 None 11 5 male & 8 female smooth newts 12 None 13 None 14 None 15 None 16 4 male & 8 female smooth newts 17 2 male & 4 female smooth newts 18 None 19 2 male smooth newts 20 1 female smooth newt 21 7 male & 3 female smooth newt 22 1 female smooth newt 23 3 male & 3 female smooth newts, 1 palmate newt 24 None Other fauna recorded from these ponds include leach larvae, sticklebacks and larger fish. 3.3 Habitat Suitability Index An assessment of each pond was also undertaken, using the Habitat Suitability Index (his) to determine the suitability of each pond for great crested newts. The greater the suitability of each pond to support great crested newts, the more likely the pond is to continue to provide a viable habitat for this species. 4 All individuals identified were smooth newts.

11 WRG Table 4 below provides a breakdown of the HSI value for each pond, with the full HSI assessment for each pond being provided in Appendix 1. Table 4 HSI Values Pond Location HSI Value Pond Suitability for GCN GCN recorded? 1 Within EfW site 0.52 Below average Yes 2 Within EfW site 0.37 Poor No 3 Within EfW site 0.71 Good No 4 Within site 0.53 Below Average No 5 Within EfW site 0.48 Poor Yes 6 Within EfW site 0.76 Good Yes 7 Within EfW site 0.37 Poor Yes 8 Within landfill 0.48 Poor Yes 9 Within landfill 0.62 Average Yes 10 Within landfill 0.53 Below average No 11 Within landfill 0.52 Below Average Yes 12 Within landfill 0.44 Poor No 13 Within landfill 0.22 Poor No 14 Within landfill 0.51 Below Average No 15 Within landfill 0.62 Average No (but recorded anecdotally) 16 West of site 0.94 Excellent Yes 17 West of site 0.87 Excellent Yes 18 Within EfW site 0.59 Below Average Yes 19 Within EfW site 0.55 Below Average No 20 Within EfW site 0.83 Excellent Yes 21 Within EfW site 0.68 Average No 22 Within landfill 0.62 Average No 23 Within EfW site 0.91 Excellent Yes 24 West of site 0.51 Below Average Yes The ponds within WRG s landholding are generally rated at below average to excellent in terms of their suitability for great crested newts, with nine of the 24 ponds rated as average or above. Generally, the ponds outside of the landfill boundary are rated as average or above. Eleven ponds were identified as being within the proposed EfW boundary or within 500m of the proposed workings, of these over half were rated as below average or above, with two ponds being rated as excellent. Seven of the eleven ponds were confirmed as supporting great crested newts, namely ponds 1-3, 5-7, 18, and 23. The ponds surrounding the proposed EfW site are generally of a greater suitability for great crested newts than those within the active landfill boundary.

12 WRG The ponds within 500m of the proposed EfW site have variation in the individual components which make up the HSI score, however the most common reasons for a lower HSI score were small size, high levels of shading, the presence of fish or fowl, or having poor water quality. The poor water quality was the case for pond 7 (within the landfill boundary) which is used as a surface water storage lagoon. It is considered unlikely that the HSI score for the ponds would increase in either the medium or long-term given that the landfill will continue to be active, and those ponds not within the active landfill boundary do not currently appear to being managed. It is considered unlikely that, in the short-medium term, these ponds would become more unsuitable for great crested newts as it is not anticipated that the level of management they currently receive is likely to change significantly.

13 WRG INTERPRETATION AND EVALUATION Great crested newts have been recorded in thirteen of the twenty four waterbodies surveyed, and in seven ponds within 500m of the proposed EfW boundary. The peak count was 20 individuals recorded at all ponds within WRGs landholding at Calvert landfill. From ponds within the area of impact of the proposed EfW the peak count was 5 (29 th April 2008). Given the location of the active landfill between the southern and northern areas of WRGs landholding it is considered unlikely that the ponds within the landholding are acting as a single meta-population. It is likely that there is a meta-population to the north-west of the landfill, with at least one meta-population being present to the south-east of the landfill. The railway line is unlikely to act as a total barrier to movement of great crested newts from north of the railway line to the ponds south of the railway line (i.e. ponds & 23 are part of the same meta-population as those found in ponds 1 & 5-6). On the basis of the peak count of great crested newts recorded at the site and with reference to Natural England guidelines 1 a low population of great crested newts is present within the proposed EfW boundary and its zone of impact (less than 10 individuals recorded during a single evening survey). Across WRG s landholding at Calvert Landfill the peak count was 20 individuals recorded indicating a good population (between 10 and 100 individuals recorded). It is considered therefore that the low population of great crested newts recorded within the proposed EfW boundary and its zone of impact is an ecological receptor of up to local value. Great crested newts were confirmed to be breeding within ponds 1, 11, 16, 17, 20 and 23 within WRG s landholding. Although full access for surveys was not achieved due to the nature of the waterbodies preventing safe access to all the banks of the waterbodies, it is considered unlikely that great crested newts were breeding in ponds 7 or 8 because of the poor terrestrial habitat surrounding the ponds, the absence of aquatic or marginal vegetation, the presence of large, deep waterbodies nearby, and the fact that the waterbodies are used by breeding swans. In terms of the proposed EfW, the great crested newts breeding within ponds 1, 20 & 23 are most at risk of impact from the proposed development. In addition to great crested newts, a small population of smooth newt was recorded from the ponds. No juvenile smooth newts were observed. A small population of palmate newt and common frog were also recorded. The current survey concluded that ponds within the site currently support a low population of great crested newt, as defined by Natural England guidelines. Based on these criteria, the site also supports a low population of smooth newt and palmate newts (less than 10 individuals). Using the selection criteria for amphibian Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (as described in Herpetofauna Workers Manual 5.), the recorded population of great crested newts at Calvert contributes to a low amphibian assemblage (three points only). A minimum score of ten, resulting from the presence of at least four species, is regarded as the qualifying score for selecting a site as a SSSI. The ponds within the zone of impact of the EfW (ie: 500m from the boundary of the site) are generally in a suitable state to support great crested newts. If they receive no management 5 Gent, A.H. & Gibson, S.D., eds Herptofauna Worker s Manual. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

14 WRG in the long-term they are likely to become increasingly choked by vegetation and may reduce in water depth, with the result that over time they are likely to become less suitable for great crested newts and unlikely to support a breeding population in the medium-long term. Ponds 7 and 8, where great crested newts were recorded around the margins of the ponds but not within the waterbodies themselves, are also vulnerable to change. Pond 8 is currently being pumped dry and pond 7 is a large waterbody fed by surface water run-off. These ponds have limited suitable terrestrial habitat around them with active landfilling northwest of them, an access road and railway to the north-east, further land associated with the landfill to the south-west. The land to the south-east does offer some suitable terrestrial vegetation although a large part of this will potentially be lost due to the consented IVC currently under construction. These ponds are also within pit 6, which is the next area of landfilling. A variety of other fauna, notably smooth newt, palmate newt and common frog, are also present. No reptiles were observed during the surveys within the proposed EfW boundary, although subsequent reptile surveys undertaken by have identified the presence of grass snakes (Natrix natrix) and slow-worms (Anguis fragilis). The ponds within the zone of impact of the EfW are assessed as being an ecological receptor of local importance, due to the presence of a low population of breeding great crested newts. It is likely that the population of great crested newts associated with the EfW zone of impact are part of single meta-population which covers all ponds south and southeast of the landfill. The nature of the ponds means it is likely that the great crested newts would persist at the site in the long-term assuming that there are no significant changes to the waterbodies or the management they currently receive.

15 WRG PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS A low meta-population of great crested newts has been recorded in seven ponds within the zone of impact of the proposed EfW plant at Calvert, namely ponds 1, 5, 6, 7, 18, 20 & 23. In addition, great crested newts were identified as being present within a further six ponds within WRGs remaining landholding at Calvert (ponds 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17), Great crested newts were confirmed to be breeding within ponds 1, 11, 16, 17, 20 and 23 within WRG s landholding by the presence of juvenile great crested newts, egg-laying females or the presence of eggs. In terms of the proposed EfW, the great crested newts breeding within ponds 1, 20 & 23 are most at risk of impact. It is also possible that great crested newts could be using pond 7 and 8 for breeding because limited access to these ponds reduced the effectiveness of a presence/absence survey for great crested newts, such that it was not possible to confirm whether they were used for breeding. It is, however, considered that these ponds are highly unsuitable as breeding habitat for great crested newts. The breeding population of great crested newts within the proposed EfW and its zone of impact is assessed of local level importance and that the assemblage of the ponds is considered to be an ecological receptor of site value. Section 1.2 sets out the legal position with regard to great crested newts, for proposed EfW at Calvert Landfill this means that it is important to ensure that the breeding or potential breeding ponds (1, 7-8, 20 & 23) are protected from disturbance, damage or destruction. In addition that potential terrestrial habitat (namely that surrounding pond 6, the fields and hedgerows to the south of the proposed EfW site and those to the north of the railway line) is protected and not disturbed, damaged or destroyed. In addition, as great crested newts spend part of their life hibernating utilising such features as brick or rubble piles as hibernacula these should not be disturbed, damaged or destroyed without consulting a qualified ecologist. These steps are important to ensure that a breach in the legislation does not occur. It is known that there is a current European Protected Species (EPS) licensed mitigation scheme being undertaken for the IVC plant, this scheme will lead to the loss of some terrestrial habitat whilst the plant is being constructed. Its location may also prevent the free movement of great crested newts from within the landfill itself to habitat within or close to the proposed EfW plant. Whilst the precise boundary of the EfW plant is not known (an indicative boundary has been used in this assessment) it is clear that a Natural England EPS mitigation licence is likely to be required prior to any works commencing on site which could involve the loss of potential terrestrial habitat. It is important that all potential impacts upon the local population of great crested newts are assessed, and depending on the nature of the actual development works for the EfW an EPS licence may be required. In particular a licence is likely to be required for works (depending on their nature) within 500m of known breeding ponds (namely ponds 1, 20 & 23). A licence could not be applied for until planning permission had been granted for the proposed EfW. The mitigation scheme is likely to involve the clearance of great crested newts from within areas of terrestrial habitat to an area not to be impacted by the development; installation of fencing to prevent them from re-entering areas of habitat whilst construction works are on-going; and potentially the creation or enhancement of additional areas of terrestrial habitat. It should be noted that not all works which may be necessary to the ponds would require an EPS licence. For example, in future years, should any of the ponds require de-silting, in order to maintain their function as a surface water lagoon, it remains a possibility that an activity such as this could be done without the need for an EPS licence. It is however

16 WRG recommended that ecological advice is sought prior to undertaking any works within the lagoons or the habitats immediately surrounding them. Specific working practices and timing considerations are likely to be required if work is to be conducted without the benefit of an EPS licence.

17 WRG SUMMARY In 2008, Consulting were instructed by WRG to undertake great crested newt surveys within the landholding of WRG at Calvert Landfill, Calvert, Buckinghamshire. Amphibian survey was undertaken at a total of twenty four ponds including eleven within the landfill boundary, on 28 th and 29 th April, 6 th, 15 th, 16 th, 20 th, 22 nd May and 3 rd, 4 th, 9 th, 10 th and 11 th May 2008, following recognised guidelines. Great crested newts were recorded from seven ponds within the 500m of the EfW boundary (1, 5-7, 18, 20 & 23) with breeding confirmed by the presence of eggs, juvenile newts or egg-laying females in ponds 1, 20 & 23. There are no breeding ponds within the EfW boundary itself. Safe access to the full waterbody and restricted visibility meant it was not possible to confirm that great crested newts were breeding within ponds 7 and 8 although it is considered unlikely. The presence of a breeding meta-population of great crested newt is considered to be of local level importance. No further survey work is considered necessary at this time. Current operations at the site are not considered to have an impact upon the population. The proposed EfW plant and associated works are likely to lead to a loss of some terrestrial habitat and as such are likely to require a European Protected Species licence from Natural England to be applied for prior to any works being undertaken. The licence could not be applied for until planning permission was granted. On-going works such as litter picking, use of the haul roads or similar activities would not require an EPS licence. Consideration should be given to maintaining the long-term protection of great crested newts which are likely to be using the habitat around ponds 13-15, and which may still be using the pond created by the Wildlife Trust which was surveyed by Scott Wilson in It should be noted that not all works to the ponds which may be necessary would require an EPS licence. For example, in future years, should any of the ponds require de-silting, in order to maintain their function as a surface water lagoon, it remains a possibility that an activity such as this could be done without an EPS licence. It is however recommended that ecological advice is sought prior to undertaking any works within the lagoons or the habitats immediately surrounding them. Specific working practices and timing considerations are likely to be required if work is to be conducted without the benefit of an EPS licence.

18 WRG CLOSURE This report has been prepared by Consulting Limited with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected and has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid. The information presented in this report provides guidance to reduce the risk of offences under UK law. However, is not a legal practice and disclaims any responsibility to the client and others for actions that lead to offences being caused, whether or not the guidance contained in this report is followed. Interpretation of UK legislation is presented in good faith; however for the avoidance of doubt, we recommend that specialist legal advice is sought. This report is for the exclusive use of Waste Recycling Group; no warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from. disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.