Mitigation and Enhancement: Case Studies and Best Practice

Transcription

1 Mitigation and Enhancement: Case Studies and Best Practice West Midlands Section Conference Wednesday 09 April 2014 Deer Park Hall & Conference Centre, Pershore, Worcs WR10 3DN Abstracts Wetland Habitat Mitigation: what, where, when, why and how? Matt Jones (RSPB) Probably more than any other habitat, wetlands can deliver multiple benefits, extending beyond just the purely ecological. Therefore, unlike other habitats such as woodland and grassland, it is difficult to provide generic guidance on wetlands in a development context. Instead, this presentation will work through a number of principles and some key questions for consideration:- Why might wetland habitats be considered, drivers potentially including mitigation for losses arising from development, provision of water resources, flood alleviation and improvements in water quality? What type of wetland, from a spectrum that extends from ponds and streams through wet grassland to fen and reedbed, might be most appropriate to deliver the required function(s)? Where should any wetland be established, considering both site and wider landscape contexts? How might this all be achieved, including a review of some of the key considerations? The presentation will be supported by a number relevant case studies. SuDS and Ecological Design Opportunities Robert Bray (Robert Bray Associates) Sustainable Drainage or SuDS is a new approach to managing rainfall that uses the landscape to manage runoff from development rather than the pipe and gully arrangement that has developed over the last 150 years or so. SuDS takes its inspiration from natural drainage processes and therefore requires an understanding of how rainfall behaves in an undeveloped environment and how these processes can be adapted to ensure a controlled flow of clean water through our towns and cities. The presentation will firstly discuss these processes and how they have been harnessed to manage runoff. The path of polluted runoff using the SuDS management train offers many opportunities for biodiversity as water makes its way through development but needs to be considered at the beginning of the design process. The possibilities for environmental enhancement will be considered using a number of Case Studies located in urban situations as well as green open space. Biodiversity in SuDS is dependent on both design and management and this relationship will also be considered through practical examples. Mitigation for Bats: examining outcomes for the National Trust Jude Smith CEnv MCIEEM (Wildworks Ecology) The fate of bats and their roosts when disturbed under licence in England and Wales is still poorly known. Work by Patty Briggs in 2004 showed that a majority of bats disturbed from roosting in barns converted for domestic use fail to return. More recently Emma Stone examined data from EPS returns made in ; showing that success or 1

2 failure of mitigation was rarely reported on, and where it was, the mitigating works were often not used by bats or fewer bats returned. The National Trust (NT) is the single biggest owner of bat roosts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, unsurprising given that the Trust owns about 50,000 built structures. So it can be assumed that, at any one time, hundreds of buildings are being repaired and restored. Many of these warrant mitigation for bats under EPS licences, or the assurance that an offence would not be committed provided a detailed (non-licenced) Method Statement is adhered to. Undertaken in 2012, the objective of this project was to critically appraise the outcomes for bats of mitigation works on a number of NT properties. Out of a sample of 50 mitigation case studies, 40 were from work which took place after 2000, whilst a further 10 re-visited the outcomes of an earlier internal study. Artificial Badger Setts: the why, where and how? Dave Lewns MCIEEM (Protected Species Ecology Ltd) This presentation will review the reasons for building artificial setts as replacement/compensation and for temporary exclusions. Often space is at a premium, but correct positioning of setts is critical for success. The presentation will include an overview of sett design and construction, including the questions of size, materials and layout, based on 25 years experience. BAPs for Barn Owls, Stotties for Stoats! : are we doing enough to secure healthy small mammal populations? Johnny Birks MCIEEM (Swift Ecology) Healthy small mammal populations should sustain a range of avian, mammalian and reptilian predators, but evidence suggests that all is not well in this respect in Britain. This session explores some of the habitat, land management and predator-prey issues, as well as some of the challenges involved in small mammal detection, survey and mitigation that may undermine efforts to sustain their populations. Compensating for Priority Habitat Losses: is translocation a suitable mechanism for minimising biodiversity loss? Bob Edmonds (SLR Consulting) Habitat translocation has become a regular feature of mitigation strategies for development projects, especially for large scale infrastructure and minerals developments. It is often seen as a quick fix for biodiversity impacts and is being more widely used, but can it deliver what it promises? This session will discuss the ethics, principles and practicalities of habitat translocation using case studies from four different habitat types: open mosaic habitat, species-rich hedgerow, broad-leaved woodland soil and floodplain meadow. The session will briefly cover industry good practice and describe how to plan and deliver a translocation. It will discuss some of the issues that may arise during delivery. It will attempt to draw out common threads from the different case studies, in particular the value of good baseline data, setting specific monitoring targets and the importance of aftercare management and remedial action plans. Finally, is a translocated habitat ever going to be good enough? Providing Mitigation for Invertebrates: some guiding principles and examples Andy Jukes MCIEEM (Conops Entomology Ltd) Invertebrates can be a daunting group, but a valuable tool in site assessments and guiding subsequent mitigation. This session will briefly provide an overview to the value of invertebrates in site assessment and the criteria of what makes a biodiverse invertebrate site. This criteria is the key to building strong terrestrial invertebrate assemblages into new habitats and features. The focus will be on producing biodiverse and robust assemblages in brownfield and quarry mitigation schemes with some additional advice on successful mitigation for some flagship Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) section 41 species such as dingy skipper, grizzled skipper and a number of bees and wasps including the suite of s41 bumblebees. 2

3 Amphibian and Reptile Mitigation: history and future directions Jim Foster MCIEEM (ARC UK) Amphibian and reptile mitigation (herpetofauna) was first attempted in the late 1980s in the UK, and has since grown in scale and complexity. Those early attempts now seem rather amateurish by modern standards largely because they were precisely that. Mitigation practice has changed substantially, responding to shifts in legislation, policy, procedure and scientific understanding and it is now generally accepted practice for developments that could impact on herpetofauna. Unfortunately there is only patchy data on which to assess the effectiveness of past projects. Whilst many projects, especially early ones, were of limited value, there are undoubtedly some schemes which have contributed positively. Yet assessing effectiveness is difficult when the objectives of mitigation are not always as clear as they should be. Moving towards a more goal-based, quantitative approach should be an ambition. Mitigation in the future may be affected by issues such as the drive for economic growth, shifts in planning policy, offsetting and legislative changes. There is some hope that, with the right steer, further improvements could be made to mitigation policy and practice. Mitigation in EIA Developments: tick-box exercise or ecological opportunity? Katherine Drayson (Oxford Brookes University) Based on Katherine s PhD research at Oxford Brookes University, this presentation will describe some of the main findings of a review of 112 EcIA chapters. The impact of CIEEM s EcIA Guidelines will be discussed and pitfalls in EcIA chapter mitigation proposals and descriptions highlighted. This will be followed by a discussion of the implementation of ecological mitigation measures in seven completed EIA development sites to identify what lessons need to be learned to ensure no net loss of biodiversity. Practical tips for improving both EcIA chapters and mitigation implementation will be provided. 3

4 Speaker Biographies Matt Jones (RSPB) Matt has been working in the conservation sector for over 16 years, currently employed as the Wetland Restoration Officer for the Meres and Mosses NIA (Nature Improvement Area), covering the internationally important wetland landscape of north Shropshire and south Cheshire. Previously Matt has worked for a range of organisations including Natural England and the Wildlife Trusts in Warwickshire and Staffordshire, much of this related to wetlands with projects ranging from Otters and Rivers on the Avon, to working with farmers to deliver flood risk management on Farming Floodplains for the Future in Staffordshire. Robert Bray (Robert Bray Associates) Robert is a Landscape Architect who has specialised in the design, construction and management of Sustainable Drainage since Early SuDS design featured Motorway Service Areas particularly the Welcome Break MSA on the M42 which has been monitored to show the environmental benefits of SuDS. He has also designed SuDS in housing, schools, commercial and Public Open Space projects together with contributions to many design guides, The SuDS Manual and National SuDS training. Although the design criteria for flows, volumes and water quality are well understood, design for amenity and biodiversity has not been considered until recently. Jude Smith CEnv MCIEEM (Wildworks Ecology) Jude has over 20 years of experience in nature conservation. Prior to forming WildWorks Ecology in 1997, she worked in the Research Department at the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, and she has also had short stints with Natural England (and predecessors) and the RSPB. Jude began as a botanist and management planner, and now has a wide expertise in habitat management, ecological survey and assessments, habitat restoration & design (particularly wetlands) and protected species work. She has a special interest in the welfare and ecology of bats and, where there are potential conflicts, in developing win-win solutions for owners with bats in historic or traditional buildings. Dave Lewns MCIEEM (Protected Species Ecology Ltd) Dave is a principle ecologist and managing director with more than 20 years' experience in carrying out protected species surveys, implementing mitigation and acting as an ecological clerk of works. Prior to this he had spent 10 years undertaking practical habitat management. Dave has worked on badger issues throughout the UK, being involved in over 400 licenced operations covering at least 720 setts and in the building of 130 artificial badger setts. Johnny Birks MCIEEM (Swift Ecology) Johnny is an experienced mammalogist with a long involvement in the conservation ecology of bats and some of the rarer mustelids. He worked for SNCOs and an NGO before co-founding Swift Ecology in Currently Chair of The Mammal Society, he contributed to the Cresswell/Mammal Society UK BAP Mammals Interim Guidance on Survey Methodologies, Impact Assessment and Mitigation, which recognises that we still have a long way to go in defining and establishing best practice for some vulnerable mammals affected by development. Bob Edmonds (SLR Consulting) Bob is a Principal Ecologist at SLR Consulting with fourteen years consultancy experience in applied ecology, impact assessment and environmental policy research. In recent years he has principally worked supporting the development sector, especially waste, energy and minerals, conducting Ecological Impact Assessment and designing and implementing ecological mitigation programmes. He has particular interests in habitat-based compensation and enhancement, especially at a landscape scale, developing site-based biodiversity management plans and exploring the potential of biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism for driving long-term developer commitments to biodiversity enhancement. 4

5 Andy Jukes MCIEEM (Conops Entomology Ltd) Andy Jukes is a terrestrial invertebrate specialist with over 17 years experience in field surveys, research and conservation advice. Work ranges from individual site assessment to landscape scale development projects including High Speed Rail 2 (HS2), country wide research projects, EcIA input and provision of technical advice to other consultancies and nature conservation bodies. Main specialism is thermophilic and flower-rich habitats especially brownfield sites, quarries, arable land, chalk downland and lowland heath although has extensive experience of a range of other habitats such as wood pasture, fens and salt marsh. Andy is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society (FRES) and a member of the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM). Jim Foster MCIEEM (ARC UK) Jim is Conservation Director at Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC), working on biodiversity policy and species recovery programmes. Before joining ARC in 2012, Jim was national amphibian and reptile specialist at Natural England from , and has also worked as a freelance ecological consultant. Katherine Drayson (Oxford Brookes University) Following her Biological Sciences degree at the University of Oxford, Katherine became an ecological consultant for WSP Environmental in London and Ecosulis in Bath. Following this, she completed her PhD in ecological mitigation at Oxford Brookes University. Katherine now works as a research fellow for the Environment and Energy Unit of Policy Exchange, one of the UK s most influential policy think tanks. Katherine has published in peer-reviewed journals, in CIEEM s In Practice, and has recently published a policy paper on urban green spaces. 5