|
|
the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles |
|
Refugia Survey |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 3456> |
| Author | |
herpetologic2 
Forum Coordinator 
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1511 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 12:16pm |
|
Lawful standards have (I Think) never been tested in the courts. A client had asked me to carry out a translocation in the South West and I quoted for approx 56 days - he went with a contractor who could clear the 10Ha site in 30 consecutive days.
I did wish him luck with that. I was planning to use flails, brush cutters and hedge cutters on the site if you have time grazing animals is an excellent way of reducing suitable reptile habitat within a site. You need to leave the edge habitats so that reptiles can then be captured by hand and moved to receptor sites. In this case I was planning to enclosure release sites with reptile fencing instead of using 10,000 metres plus around the development site. It comes down to time and to install that amount of fencing would have taken too long it is much better to spend the money on follow up monitoring and management of the receptor sites - increasing the open habitat and edges for the reptile population than to trash lots of habitat with mini diggers installing unnecessary reptile fences. Of course it is a free for all with widespread reptiles. A large construction project in London is spending a cool £million (estimated) at a site in South Essex to remove lizards and maybe a few adders from farmland. Running to the bank all the way and the client is happy to spend this just on the reptiles! |
|
 |
|
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group 
Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 12:51pm |
|
Sorry Jon I couldn't disagree more regarding trashing the habitat as you go along as an effective methodology. In fact it is in direct conflict with the legislation.
Grazing animals will clear a site of course, through predation by other species. I know you are out to promote these forms of habitat manipulation, but all can be done within the scope of any capture scheme - after the majority of animals are captured. Not using fencing is like trying to bail out the sea at many sites and any capture work at all would be a complete waste of time if in-situ mitigation was the aim of the project, as the animals will simply return to where they were captured if there is no exclusion fencing. In the past you have stated that your main dislike of fencing is because the fencing contractors make money from it.. hmmmm! I've visited more than one mitigation in the past using the 'habitat manipulation approach' as opposed to large scale fencing and capture. On two occasions there were extraordinary concentrations of animals in surrounding habitats due to displacement. Far more than could be sustainable in the long-term. At one of the sites in Kent that you would know well I think, I had even surveyed the surrounds in previous years and found very few animals, not so whilst the mitigation works were in place.. 40+ slow worms under a single refuge? When previously I would have been lucky to see 1. Funny to think I was working just up the road with miles of fencing and hundreds of refuges on a very successful project. Whilst a certain old aerodrome I had known for decades fell off the radar in terms of it's conservation status... I still remember finding adders all over the place whilst looking at the meadow that was once their home all ploughed up and devastated as part of the 'mitigation'. A good few of them were translocated to our own fully prepared receptor site we were using for our own project - really a ridiculous situation but I couldn't just leave them there to be predated or starve to death with no suitable habitat left for foraging. Of course there is plenty of scope for habitat manipulations and this is indeed a key factor in the long-term sustainability of any mitigation scheme - I simply do not agree that it should replace initial capture work though. So what if a developer spends a million on reptiles? They stand to make tens of millions from their development and that is what they are in it for, why feel sympathy for them when they are only out to make money themselves? It is only right that they pay to compensate for the impacts they generate on the environment. PS what is a forum coordinator?
Edited by GemmaJF - 06 Sep 2012 at 1:24pm |
|
|
|
|
herpetologic2
Forum Coordinator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 1:38pm |
|
Hi Gemma
It depends on how you determine success really doesn't it. There is also a debate on whether moving thousands of animals results in the same level of predation or loss as manipulation of habitats to focus animals into suitable environs for capture if this is required. it may just be movement of animals towards on site receptor sites as in the example. Also I did mention reptile fencing to prevent recolonisation back towards the donor site rather than enclose the whole donor site instead using smaller amounts of reptile fencing in reasonably large release areas within receptor sites which double up as a soft release method for reptiles. If a site has been grazed or mowed annually surely it is quite right to continue with this management and go further during any mitigation strategy with reptiles? Creating new habitat as compensation for the lost or avoiding suitable reptile habitats altogether would help to mitigate for development. I am no longer involved with the site you mention I hate to think how that panned out. How many projects go over three seasons? apart from the very large mass translocations in recent times most projects barely manage a few months let alone what the lawful guidance states. I do feel sympathy for the developer in this case as the million spent could have been used in a better way which would actually mean there are animals left to recolonise the new habitat which is being created. It is just that the official line was they had to put out lots of ecologists, thousands of ACO's to find relatively few animals compared to where the majority of the animals were found. Once Natural England had signed off that strategy there was no way of changing the approach. In many cases habitat manipulation is quite appropriate after surveys have been undertaken and habitat assessments indicate that the reptiles were focussed on habitats which were not touched by the planned development - however suspension of the hay cutting regime and the farming practices allowed for small colonisation of headlands by lizards and migrating adders. There was bad timing and other issues with mammals on the site as well which did not help matters. PS I do not know what the forum coordinator is - I have admin powers on here
|
|
|
|
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group
Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 2:07pm |
|
I would have thought it obvious that success relates to the fact the animals are still thriving at the receptor site today, in fact it is now one of the best sites I still monitor with a very high and healthy density of animals. If you mean was it a success in financial terms, yes it was, but then I and the people I have working with me like to eat! Of course the original habitat from where the animals were moved is now full restored also. A win win situation and typical of the work I do.
 Nobody is saying current management regimes would be changed during a mitigation, in fact it is easy enough to incorporate them to ones advantage.. Unfortunately I have had clients state that using weed killer to clear areas or grazing animal is suitable mitigation. It is not. Also that exclusion fencing is not required - not the case at all when the area being mitigated is surrounded by other good habitats. If one has a given density of animals, the only logical way to prevent killing or harm as per the legislation is in the first instance move them to a suitable and well prepared receptor area. Only when the majority have been moved would I consider any form of habitat manipulation. Preferably the receptor area would be continuous with the habitat to be lost, so exclusion fencing is vital. Why do you consider an area with a lower density less worthy than one with a high one? Surely if the animals are at low density their conservation status in the area is of even more concern so an equal amount of effort or greater is perfectly reasonable. It isn't all about bragging rights of 'we removed x hundred animals in our project so it was more worthwhile' it is about insuring that the local conservation status is maintained or enhanced. This is actually more of a challenge with low density populations. I just think one has to be very careful of what is 'recommended' there are plenty who will take shot cuts based on such statements. In addition, I think there is an issue as to what is a 'suitable' receptor site. Many are not at all suitable and this would account for high level of predation of translocated animals in many cases. I am actually an advocate of moving animals into existing populations shock horror. With habitat extensions and 'soft' release sites the influx of animals leads to faster colonisation of new habitats. Of course there is also the genetic conservation factor of say moving animals from one side of a barrier such as a motorway, to the other for example. I really have never understood the logic of moving animals to habitats that do not already sustain reptiles, there is a reason why they are not there. So in terms of the success of a translocation to such an area it would seem very unlikely to work from the outset. Surely the point is to restore continuous spreads of animals in diverse populations rather than create isolated pockets doomed in the future?
Edited by GemmaJF - 06 Sep 2012 at 2:42pm |
|
|
|
|
sussexecology
Senior Member 
Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 9:47pm |
Couldn't agree more Jon If you remove habitat connectivity from a development site, or remove a grass snake egg laying site or an adder hibernation site, or indeed hibernaiton site for any reptile and leave no habitat left on the site, you are potentially doing more harm to the reptile population than the killing and injury impacts itself. Precisely why on all my projects that i am working on at the mo, and have in the past, i ensure that these factors are taken into account. Even if that means leaving a buffer zone along a hedgerow of 1.5 m for dispersal routes. I have a lovely receptor site in Kent from a development in 2010 that i worked on. I am also in the process of managing this over a period of 5 years including increasing the amount of open grass areas and reduction in scrub cover and long-term monitoring. Monitoring is so important because otherwise how would you know if a project has been successful or not? Client happy with these measures and that is good news for the reptiels. So far, it is looking good. I had a slight problem with a potential receptor site this year though. Right at the end of the pre-translocation surveys to check that the site didn't have the target species already and there was room to increase the carrying capacity if they were present, the landowner suddenly changed his mind that we couldn't use his land so i was back to square one. Fortunately though, found another solution and to be honest a much better one. I disagree with your comment on extensive exclusion fencing though, as this is required in most cases. Depends on the site though and various other factors. If you don't have an exclusion fence, then how can you be certain that you will keep reptiles out of the construction work zone, or that the ones you have moved won't go back to where they were before you moved them. I think it is a pointless exercise if you don't have an exclusion fence because you'll be forever moving the little blitters. i know that putting in exclusion fencing is expensive but it is part of the mitigation. The alternative of reducing habitat cover is possible but I don't agree with that in all cases because of the effort required and if the habitats improve in the meantime, then it is harder work for you. Also, if you are continuously cutting the vegetation to a low height to stop them moving through the site, then there is a risk you could kill/injure them in the process and i don't agree with that at all. Sorry Jon - not having a dig, just like a debate like Gemma. I was saddened by your post of the change in number of days and a different contractor, but doesn't surprise me either. I quoted a client for a reptile survey x 10 surveys as a min on a small site but another ecologist quoted the client around £200 for putting in a fence line and removing the reptiles in just one day. Just don't get it myself on how they can justify that and of course they got the work but good luck to the client as that is obviusly not reasoanble effort. Mitigation prior to a survey? Really....aren't you meant to do the survey first to find out what is there before you do any capture effort. Also, i have never cleared a whole site of reptiles in just 1 day and i don't know anyone else who has. These are the sort who haven't got a clue what they are doing and why the guidelines are badly needed. nice to hear from you again though Was wondering where you have been Feeling much better now though although my colleague told me today that i look over-worked today. Yeap, well, that is night work for you but looking forward to starting on the next mitigation job. 20 days really isn't enough i don't think but I will see how i get on. I am using a high density of tins though and as many as possible which is good, but will let you know if I make it by day 20.Still waiting for those bets to come in by the way!  oh happy days. Regards SE Reptile Ecologist |
|
|
|
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group
Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 9:56pm |
|
Nearly as good as the one that quoted £50 to say nothing was there that I had recently SE. That turned out to be a friend of the developer surprise surprise.
That is really appalling though £200 to clear the site in a day? You should spill the beans, I'm sure we would all like to know who that was! SE what are your views on traslocation into existing populations? I've always thought it preferable where possible to have receptor areas adjoining existing populations and release into proven good habitat as a 'soft' landing for the animals translocated. This has worked for us so well in the past, yet it is often looked on as a last resort. It seems to me far better than creating an isolated population. I chose this on a job a few years back rather than translocating animals into an area where there were none present. It seemed to me pointless to place them in an isolated island of habitat. Is it not far better to carryout work to improve carrying capacity and increase the size and connectivity of a known hot spot and also bolster up the existing population a little in the process?
Edited by GemmaJF - 06 Sep 2012 at 10:03pm |
|
|
|
|
sussexecology
Senior Member
Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 6:18pm |
|
Thanks Gemma My viewst is that it is preferable to keep the reptiles on the development site if you can or in adjacent areas of good reptile habitat. It's not always possible though and finding a suitable receptor site within 1 km can be difficult if this is your only option. For those sites which are adjacent to the development site, then i will assume that reptiles are present on the site (if it hasn't been surveyed) and try to increase the carrying capacity first such as increasing the amount of habitat and restoring areas of poor habitat to good habitat. It seems to work so far. I don't like placing reptiles in isolated habitats especially if i am dealing with grass snakes or adders. I prefer receptor sites which have good connectivity in the wider landscape as i think this is really important. I try to make the receptor site bigger in size of the habitat to be lost but this kind of goes in line with the above paragraph on increasing carrying capacity. I do know a site in East Sussex which is isolated and has no reptiles present and we could use it as a receptor site. This site was surveyed as part of a landowner survey and the owner said that i would be welcome to use it if necessary as a receptor site. It was really kind of him to offer me that, but to date i have not used it because I am just not happy about the connectivity issue because the surrounding habitats are pretty poor quality. I had a development site within 1 km of this site last year where i had to look at the option of a seperate receptor site. I eventually found a suitable receptor area but it took me months and months to do so. It would have been tempting to take the site as described above, but I wasn't comfortable so I didn't. It would have saved me and the client a lot of time and money, but I think it would have resulted in a net loss of local reptile conservation status. It is really tempting to spill the beans for sure, but in a PM as i think he might be on here and i don't want to start a riot. I didn't mind not getting the job, but I did mind about the impacts on the reptiles including a potential grass snake egg laying site being destroyed. Nothing i could have done to prevent it as I tried to advise the client that what the other ecologist had proposed was wrong, but of course he didn't listen to me as it was more about the money. Regards SE Reptile Ecologist |
|
|
|
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group
Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 12:01pm |
|
I agree totally SE with your aims, I too will go in-situ as the first option with manipulation to increase carrying capacity. As you say though this is not always possible. We had a job where the surrounding habitat was so good I really couldn't think of anything to make it any better a few years ago which is an unusual one for 'can't do it that way'. We only had a handful of snakes on the job so these just went over the fence as it was part of the home range and the low numbers would not impact in any way. Large numbers of lizards and slow-worm had to be moved though.
I think there are options with the 4 species to be creative. So for that job I had a good adder site with a handful of grass snakes and low densities of slow-worms and common lizards that I had worked on in previous years. I saw no reason at all not to improve the site, extending it and moving in more slow-worms and common lizards from the nearby mitigation. Particularly as it was a case that no funding was available for the habitat manipulation at the site otherwise. I remember LB said I was just feeding the adders lol, but long term monitoring indicates that the slow-worm and common lizard populations on the site are now at much better levels and the adder are still thriving and using the new habitat too. |
|
|
|
|
sussexecology
Senior Member
Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Sep 2012 at 12:14am |
Thank you Gemma. I am with you 100% By the way, you don't need to use a mini-digger for installing fencing Jon. Walk behind chain-trenchers are much better to use as well as easier to use. As long as you do the hand-searches and put refugia down a few weeks before installing the fence line, it works a treat. Mini diggers also risk squashing little reptiles in good quality habitat and I prefer not to use them in sensitive areas. In fact, the only time i will use a mini-digger is to do a destructive search, if i feel one is needed for a site. Not having a dig again Jon and that was meant to be a pun. Got to have a sense of humour at this time of night. Regards SE Reptile Ecologist Edited by sussexecology - 09 Sep 2012 at 12:28am |
|
|
|
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group
Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Sep 2012 at 11:05pm |
|
I've done watching brief for miles and miles and miles.. of fencing put in with chain-trenchers. The only fatality I can remember was one morning when the contractors were a bit eager to start and got going before we arrived. It wasn't warm enough for reptiles to be active and sadly a female slow worm was killed by accident. I have to say the contractors were very upset and wouldn't do a thing onsite after that until we got there. They are low impact and one fatality on one project compared to many projects and thousands of animals due to a mistake I can live with. (The contractor hadn't fully appreciated why they needed to wait for us to give the go ahead to start that morning)
I guess Jon some people hated seeing all those miles of fencing, I had on the M20. Did you know on the other side of it there was a very high density of adder? Not one adder was even ever moved from the works area, they were all kept excluded throughout the entire project from day 1. Without the fencing it would have been carnage. It's total rubbish btw that removing vegetation stops reptiles occupying an area. I've seen lizards running all over newly mown grasslands, well at least until they were predated by birds and right along that entire stretch or motorway we were capturing slow worms from areas of practically no vegetative cover that were regularly cut by Hiqhways for safety reasons. You simply must have fencing for many projects, else really one is brushing the animals under the carpet. To say one can simply 'manipulate' the animals away is to me a total myth. You can certainly make them absent from an area by grazing or digging up the soil, the only way however you can make them absent from an area without HARMING them is to exclude them and capture the animals out of the exclusion area for release either in-situ or at a carefully prepared receptor area.
Edited by GemmaJF - 09 Sep 2012 at 11:24pm |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 3456> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
herpetologic2 wrote: