The West Weald Landscape Project is based at the Su ssex Wildlife Trust, with funding also from Chiches ter District Council, West Sussex County Council and the BBC Wildlife Fund.

This project promotes the integrated management of a viable and enhanced landscape in the West Weald for people and nature.

A partnership of organisations helps to oversee the project which includes the Sussex Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Forestry Commission, Environment Agency, Butterfly Conservation, Surrey Wildlife Trust, South Downs Joint Committee, Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, National Trust, West Sussex and Surrey County

Councils, Chichester District Council and Waverley Borough Council.

Rich Howorth - West Weald Landscape Project Manager Sussex Wildlife Trust, Woods Mill, Henfield, West S ussex BN5 9SD

Tel : 01273 492630 e-mail : richhoworth@sussexwt.org.uk www.WestWeald.org.uk

Field Survey of Barbastelle Bat Flightlines’ Condit ion from Ebernoe SAC

2008

Rich Howorth West Weald Landscape Project

March 2009 Executive Summary Two main bat flightlines of the eight in total originally identified in 1998 from Ebernoe Common were surveyed as a sample subset in detail to assess their integrity and condition for use as barbastelle bat flightlines. A standard method was developed to assess the three types of flightline habitats used by the bats - hedgerows, watercourses and woodland blocks - drawing on existing standard survey methods as possible. Information was collected for all these habitats on their vegetation structure, species composition, land use context and management. Habitat features were subsequently scored according to their suitability to facilitating barbastelle bat movement and potential suitability for foraging for hedges/watercourses and woodland habitats respectively. A total of 12 km of flightlines were surveyed. Two-thirds of this length was composed of hedgerows and watercourses, of which three out of every five were considered to be in at least ‘good’ condition for flightline movement. Almost 60 individual flightline gaps were recorded, however, covering a fifth of the hedge/watercourse sections length. Most sections surveyed were relatively unmanaged, offering better cover, although many sections could be wider in vegetation extent. Connectivity through other hedge and streams and to woodlands was generally high, as was the prevalence of nearby semi-natural habitats which may offer foraging potential. The woodland blocks were mostly deemed in at least ‘good’ condition for barbastelle bat foraging, consisting of native broadleaved species and a significant proportion contained water features, were located in the river floodplain and/or had rides within them, all aspects making them potentially more attractive to bat barbastelle bat foraging use. Considerable variation in woodland size, structure and management was recorded. There have been improvements since 1998 in flightline cover close to Ebernoe around Butcherland SWT reserve and in a few other locations, although former problem areas generally remain so. Hedgerow and watercourse conservation priorities are set out, with a particular emphasis on prioritising the downstream section of Flightline No. 3 of the River Kird. The woodland blocks surveyed, in contrast, are generally not felt to require any kind of specific intervention to improve them as potential foraging sites. Lastly, recommendations are made for future surveys.

2

Introduction The barbastelle bat is a rare species with a limited number of confirmed populations in roost woodlands in southern Britain, of which the Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) reserve of Ebernoe Common contains perhaps the best studied population in the UK. This bat species and the Bechstein’s bat are both designated features of this Special Area of Conservation (SAC), due to their status as Annex 2 listed species on the EC Habitats Directive. The barbastelle has been selected as the principal flagship species of the West Weald Landscape Project (WWLP) due to its diverse habitat requirements and dependence on sensitive management at a landscape scale, ranging out from dense old-growth woodlands along woody corridors to wet grassland and woodland feeding areas. The spatial characteristics of the Ebernoe population were studied in detail by radio-tracking individual female barbastelles by Frank Greenaway in 1998 (Greenaway 2004), generating a landscape-scale map of eight principal bat flightlines including a summary assessment of their condition for bat movement. Two of these principal flightlines were selected for detailed ground-level survey in 2008 to assess their current condition and thus inform targeting of conservation enhancements, also enabling a comparison of apparent changes over the preceding decade (albeit using different approaches). Methods The barbastelle bat flightlines from Ebernoe Common SAC that were surveyed in the field were No.2 (with two distinct branches, labelled ‘A’ & ‘B’) and No. 3. The survey of No. 2A was stopped part-way along its very long extension upon reaching a large area of intensive grassland and former orchards (all still apparently failing in flightline cover). A method was developed and trialled to survey the flightlines continuously along their length, covering each of the three types of habitats encountered of hedgerows (and tree lines), watercourses, and woodland blocks. Data was recorded on a standard survey form by walking along each discrete flightline section, namely a field length or woodland block, registering diverse variables to describe vegetation structure, woody species composition, associated habitats and apparent management (see Appendix 1 survey sheet). Management advice recommendations were also noted to be later communicated to landowners. The raw survey data was entered on to spreadsheets held at SWT (Appendices 2 & 3). A series of digital photographs were taken at each section end, or in the case of woodlands within the block and along any rides present, resulting in a photographic register also held at SWT. The survey sections were later digitised at SWT to ArcView GIS including tables of the recorded variables for each by habitat type. Hedgerows and watercourses were largely recorded and analysed using the same criteria, drawing on other standardised methods of UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) hedgerow surveys (DEFRA 2007) and limited aspects of river habitat surveys (EA 2003). These habitat sections were subsequently scored according to weighted variables for their suitability to facilitating barbastelle movement to generate an overall condition score for each in 2008, which was then compared with their 1998 assigned status. Woodlands were recorded differently (partly drawing on the management codes used by the Highland Birchwoods Caledonian Partnership) given their different nature and use by barbastelles, since they provide suitable cover for movement (generally along internal woodland rides) as well as representing foraging habitats at certain periods of the year and in poorer weather especially. Foraging along hedges and watercourses also occurs but was not a specific focus of this survey.

3

Results A total of 39 individual sections were recorded along a total linear length of 12 kilometres for the three flightline routes surveyed, comprising 25 hedgerows and watercourses and 14 woodlands. 1. Hedgerows & Watercourses The flightlines were found to vary considerably in their condition, although a majority (60%) of the 25 individual hedge/watercourse sections were assessed to be in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition (see Table 1 at end). Figure 1 shows their mapped locations and attributed condition scores, comprising four classes from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’, as well as their individual percentage scores too. The original assessment ten years previously similarly found considerable variation in flightline condition - see Figure 2 for the 1998 study map section (rated according to a non-quantitative and different scoring system). The detailed field data of all recorded characteristics of hedge and watercourse sections is included as Appendix 2. A total of 57 gaps in flightline cover were recorded along the hedge/watercourse sections, varying greatly individually in their extent and significance (from a few inconsequential metres to long completely open sections) but collectively covering 20% of the total sections length (1.6 km gaps of 8.3 km total). A substantial number of individual sections failed to meet the BAP criteria for integrity/continuity, many having more than 10% gaps and/or individual gaps more than 5 m in length (although for barbastelles 20 m was considered to be the unfavourable threshold). Other relevant characteristics of the hedge/watercourse sections include: - Size (height, width and cross-sectional area): nearly all of the sections exceeded the BAP criteria for canopy height (1 m) as well as the barbastelle bat augmented threshold of 2 m, whereas for width many sections fell below the thresholds of 1.5 m and 2 m respectively. Thus cross-sectional area was also below the BAP 3 m criterion in many sections of Flightlines 2B and 3. - Standard Trees : nearly all sections had at least one standard tree, many having more than five (and hence scoring higher in our assessment). - Connections : most sections had more than one connection (hence scored) to another hedgerow (or stream), whereas a minority only were connected to more than one woodland block. - Land use adjacent : nearly all flightline sections had woodland or another semi-natural habitat located in their immediate vicinity, with the exception of parts of Flightline 2B, illustrating the relatively good habitat cover and hospitable nature of this landscape and also the potential for barbastelle alternative or intermediate foraging opportunities along many sections. - Hedge management : most hedgerows were untrimmed hence offering more flightline cover (and scoring highest), with only roadside hedgerows along the Staples Hill minor road being intensively managed (and not scoring). - Watercourse cover : most watercourse sections had semi-continuous shading hence offering some but not complete flightline cover (intermediate scoring), although this declined significantly towards the end of Flightline No. 3 (Moor Farm and Sladelands).

4

Figure 1 – Condition of Hedge & Watercourse Flightl ine Sections

5

Figure 2 – Condition of Flightlines in 1998

6

2. Woodland blocks The majority of woodlands surveyed were classed as in ‘good’ condition (64%, 9 sections), although often only marginally so, with the remainder comprised of three ‘very good’ woods and two ‘poor’ woodland sections (see Table 2 at end). Figure 3 illustrates their locations and assigned condition scores. The detailed field data of all woodland sections’ recorded characteristics is provided in Appendix 3. Important characteristics of the woodland sections include: - Type & composition : nearly all of the woods were composed exclusively of native broadleaved tree (principally oak) and shrub species (thus scored higher on this basis). - Area : size of blocks varied greatly, from a fraction of a hectare to just over 10 ha in one case, with more than a quarter of blocks being greater than 5 ha in area (scoring highest). - Structure (canopy & shrub layer height, density and heterogeneity): large variation was evident between (and sometimes within) individual woods, as would be expected. Apparent characteristics included often dense but quite uniform canopy structures, whereas the understorey varied more in shrub density but was less uniform within stands. - Features : the presence of (generally running) water scored highly in our analysis, five of the woods (over a third) possessing this characteristic. Half of the woods contained a ride furthermore, a useful feature for bat movement through and within them. - Landscape context : around half of the blocks were located in the main river (Kird) floodplain, an important characteristic, and half lay next to semi-improved open habitats too. Most woods were connected to other habitats by multiple hedgerows additionally. - Management : a minority of woods (4) had been subject to recent potentially detrimental woodland management for barbastelle foraging, including understorey clearance and heavy thinning.

7

Figure 3 – Condition of Woodland Flightline Section s

8

3. Summary Assessment of Flightlines 2A – Hedges/watercourses were all found to be in good condition , with apparent improvements in flightline cover status in the initial sections (2A 1-4 north of Butcherland Farm) and later sections (2A 11-12 near Accolds Farm) since their previous evaluation in 1998. All of the woodlands were in at least good condition for bat foraging, with the exception of a cleared and horse-grazed rew at Mereside Farm (2A 7) which was poor. This flightline is a lower priority for conservation enhancement targeting. 2B – Hedges/watercourses were mostly in poor condition , especially in hedgerow sections 2B 11-13 (along the minor road from Staples Hill east to Belchamber Farm). All hedgerow sections were deemed to provide inadequate flightline cover in 1998, hence most have showed no change although there may have been some improvements at each end in cover (good numbers of standard trees). Woodlands were again in good condition, although management at Beal House farm (2B 10) made this section marginal. This flightline is considered a medium priority for conservation work. 3 – A flightline that has its hedges/watercourses in predominantly good-very good condition along the River Kird as far as Isling Bridge (3 1-9), downstream of which (3 10-14) it remains very open and hence in poor-very poor condition . There have been evident improvements in the first part of the flightline around SWT’s ‘re-wilding’ reserve initiative at Butcherland (3 1-4) since the 1998 assessment and little or no apparent decline in cover along the middle river sections since then (3 5-9). The 1998 status of failing cover in the final sections (Moor Farm and Sladelands) holds true, hence this part is a high priority for conservation targeting. The few woodlands were rated as marginally good only or poor due to their size and composition. It should be noted that the bat radio-tracking surveys by Frank Greenaway in 2008 confirmed the considerable use of Flightline No. 3 from Ebernoe but failed to detect use of Flightline No. 2 (either branch), most likely because individuals using the latter routes were not tagged and may be located in as yet unstudied further roost sub-groups (Greenaway 2008).

9

Conclusions & Recommendations

• This survey has enabled an objective quantitative assessment of conservation priorities for flightline condition and enhancement needs for Ebernoe barbastelles along the sample of the surveyed flightlines for the first time.

• Individual section recommendations are being communicated to landowners with the objective of integrating enhancement measures with proposed agri-environment scheme options (including capital works) in particular.

• The main desired improvements to flightline condition can be brought about by relaxing hedgerow and watercourse vegetation management intensity and frequency to provide better structure (especially width of woody vegetation) and cover, although appropriate native tree and shrub planting will be required for larger gaps and wholly open sections.

• Greater cover and shading of watercourses needs to be considered in terms of any potential negative effects on aquatic life also however.

• Scope for improvements to adjacent foraging conditions, for example grassland management and wetland creation, should be considered as part of flightline enhancement works.

• Woodlands are generally considered not to require any particular enhancement measures as foraging resources, although their potential importance for this function should be considered if any substantial changes are proposed such as large-scale thinning or drainage works for example.

• The latter part of Flightline No. 3 is identified as the greatest priority for targeted improvements, which is currently being addressed through a number of proposed Higher Level Stewardship agreements at various stages of development.

• Flightline No. 2B also offers scope in parts for enhancements, more likely on Belchamber Farm’s land (being pursued) than along the minor road which has multiple ownerships, operational restrictions and less apparent owner interest.

• Clear flightline improvements are evident in the initial parts of Flightline Nos. 2A and 3 where SWT has been allowing hedgerows to grow up and encroach out in to fields as part of the naturalistic grazing and pasture woodland creation project being pursued at Butcherland (which also now offers much greater foraging opportunities too).

• Other flightlines from Ebernoe, as well as the newly mapped ones from The Mens, should be surveyed according to a standardised approach as resources and opportunities allow.

• Survey work should be combined with and used as an opportunity for proactive landowner engagement, including provision of subsequent feedback with scope for follow-up action wherever possible.

• Modifications should be made to the field survey methods to simplify this to only record those criteria used for scoring section condition (hence losing some BAP hedgerow survey variables) from 2009 onwards which should make future surveys more rapid and efficient.

• The criteria used to assess hedges/watercourses cover and woodland foraging condition in particular should be reviewed over time in line with increasing ecological knowledge of studies populations to gauge their relevance and relative importance, given the somewhat provisional nature of this initial assessment (for which feedback is welcomed).

• This survey could be repeated in ten years time in conjunction with direct monitoring studies of barbastelle bat populations to assess change and the impact of conservation efforts and other factors.

.

10

Acknowledgements The BBC Wildlife Fund generously funded the West Weald Landscape Project Manager Rich Howorth’s time to co-ordinate and carry out this exercise. Rich is grateful to SWT volunteers Steve Ockenden and Dave Moody for persevering with data entry of paper records and for digitising to GIS the flightline sections respectively. Lastly, Frank Greenaway was very helpful through his advice on initial survey methods and later data analysis. References - DEFRA (2007) Hedgerow Survey Handbook – A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK (2nd. Edition). - Environment Agency (2003) River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version. - Greenaway F (2004) Advice for the management of flightlines and foraging habitats of the barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus, English Nature Research Report No. 657. - Greenaway F (2008) Barbastelle Bats in the Sussex West Weald 1997-2008, contractor report to the West Weald Landscape Project, Sussex Wildlife Trust. - Highland Birchwoods Caledonian Partnership Level II Survey Cards – downloaded from http://www.highlandbirchwoods.co.uk/UserFiles/File/publications/Level-II/survey.pdf Tables 1. Hedges & Watercourses Section Scores 2. Woodland Section Scores Appendices 1. Survey form (blank) 2. Field data for Hedges & Watercourses 3. Field data for Woodlands

Table 1 - HEDGES & WATERCOURSES SECTION SCORESSection Type Land holding Canopy H Canopy W Gaps L Gaps % H-S Connections No. (tot hedge/stream)Wd Connections No. (tot woods)No. Trees Land Use adj (A / B) Hedge (Type,Shape,Features)W/course (Woody Veg,Shade,Aquatics,Features)TOTALS % Scores 08 Status 1998_Status

2A-1 WC Butcherland Farm 5 0 2 0 0 2 1 5 15 60 Good Inadequate flightline cover2A-2 WC Butcherland Farm 5 0 3 2 0 0 2 1 3 16 64 Good Inadequate flightline cover2A-3 WC Roger Wood (absentee) 5 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 3 17 68 Good Inadequate flightline cover2A-4 WC SWT Butcherland 5 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 3 17 68 Good Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas2A-5 WC SWT Butcherland 5 0 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 18 72 Good Good flightlines and forage areas2A-11 H Thornhouse Farm 5 0 3 2 0 1 1 1 5 18 72 Good Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas2A-12 H Accolds Farm 5 5 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 18 72 Good Inadequate flightline cover

2B-8 H Kiln Copse Farm 2 0 3 2 1 0 2 0 2 12 48 Poor Inadequate flightline cover2B-9 H Beal House Farm 2 2 3 2 1 0 2 1 5 18 72 Good Inadequate flightline cover2B-11 H Great Slifehurst 'Farm' 2 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 9 36 Poor Inadequate flightline cover2B-12 H Copse Cottage Farm 2 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 11 44 Poor Inadequate flightline cover2B-13 H Belchamber Farm 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 7 28 Poor Inadequate flightline cover2B-14 H Belchamber Farm 2 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 2 13 52 Good (marginal) Inadequate flightline cover

3-1 H SWT Butcherland 2 0 3 2 1 1 1 1 5 16 64 Good Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas3-2 H SWT Butcherland 2 0 3 2 1 1 0 1 5 15 60 Good Inadequate flightline cover3-4 H Moor Farm 5 5 3 2 0 0 2 1 5 23 92 Very Good Good flightlines and forage areas, Inadequate flightline cover3-5 WC (/W) Moor Farm 5 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 5 19 76 Very Good Good flightlines and forage areas3-6 WC Kiln Copse Farm 2 0 3 2 0 0 2 1 3 13 52 Good (marginal) Good flightlines and forage areas3-8 H Moor Farm 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 19 76 Very Good Good flightlines and forage areas3-9 WC Moor Farm 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 11 44 Poor Good flightlines and forage areas3-10 WC Moor Farm 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 8 32 Poor Failing cover on flightlines3-11 WC Moor Farm 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 8 32 Poor Failing cover on flightlines3-12 WC Moor Farm 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 24 Very Poor Failing cover on flightlines3-13 WC Sladelands 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 8 32 Poor Failing cover on flightlines3-14 WC Sladelands 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 16 Very Poor Failing cover on flightlines

Hedge / Watercourse H - Height W - Width<2m = 0 2-4m =2 <20m=3 <10%=2 >1=1 >1=1 1-5=1 Woodland/SI=1 Untrimmed - 5 Continous Shading = 52-4m = 2 >4m = 5 >20m=0 >10%=0 >5=2 Imp./arable = 0 Trimmed=2 Semi -Cont' Shading = 3>4 =5 (no habitat = 0) Tall & leggy=2 Occasional Clump = 2

Intensive=0 Isolated & scattered = 1Structure - 15 points max Landscape context - 5 poin ts max Management' - 5 points max

Table 2 - WOODLAND SECTION SCORESSection Type Land holding Wood TypeAREA MATURITY (height?)CANOPY DENSITYCOMPLEXITY (Structure)DIVERSITY (woody)SHRUB DENSITYSHRUB STRUCTUREShrub Spp Water features (other habitats)Wood Features No. Rides In Floodplain? No. Connections Land Use adj Management - Curr / Past r / Past nCONDITION SCORE (Foraging)% Score 08 Status 1998 Status

2A-6 W Hills Green Farm House 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 14 56 Good Good flightlines and forage areas2A-7 W Mereside Farm 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 11 44 Poor Good flightlines and forage areas2A-8 W Hills Green 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 14 56 Good Good flightlines and forage areas2A-9 W Hills Green 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 13 52 Good (marginal) Good flightlines and forage areas2A-10 W Thornhouse farm 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 19 76 Very Good Good flightlines and forage areas2A-13 W National Trust 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 2 21 84 Very Good Inadequate flightline cover2A-14 W Whithurst Park 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 14 56 Good Inadequate flightline cover

2B-6 W Kiln Copse Farm 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 14 56 Good Good flightlines and forage areas, Inadequate flightline cover2B-7 W Kiln Copse Farm 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 14 56 Good Good flightlines and forage areas2B-10 W Beal House Farm 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 13 52 Good (marginal) Inadequate flightline cover2B-15 W Leconfield Estate 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 2 19 76 Very Good Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas

3-3 W SWT Butcherland 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 13 52 Good (marginal) Good flightlines and forage areas, Inadequate flightline cover3-7 W Kiln Copse Fm 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 11 44 Poor Good flightlines and forage areas3-15 W Parsonage Farm 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 13 52 Good (marginal) Failing cover on flightlines

N = 1 5+ ha = 2 >12 m H = 1 D=2 D/M=1 Qu main = 2 D=2 D/M=1 Native = 1 Water = 4 Naturalness =1 1+ = 1 Y=2 >2= 1 Semi Improved =1 Lack of impacting Current = 22-5 ha = 1 M=1 U=0 Other native trees = 1M=1 U=0 Exotics=0 N=0 Improved/arable = 0<2 ha = 0 O=0 Exotics=0 O=0

Wood Type/Size - 3 points maxStructure - 10 points max Site Features - 6 points max Landscape context - 4 p oints max Management' - 2 points max

1

APPENDIX 1 – FIELD SURVEY FORM

Barbastelle Bat Flightlines from Ebernoe Survey 200 7-08 Equipment required: Binoculars, Digital camera, First Aid Kit, GPS unit (& compass possibly); plus rigid tape measure (3 m+ length) if precisely measuring heights/widths etc. Method Summary:

• A form should be completed for each discrete section i.e. one linear length of field for hedgerow/watercourse flightlines and one contained patch for woodland blocks.

• Each section should be assigned a unique code consisting of the flightline number followed by the sequential section number, backed up by a written description.

• The whole section length should be walked, noting relevant features as you go along including vegetation composition and each evident gap.

• An appropriate representative point should be selected to record average height and width of linear sections.

• A digital photo should be taken at each end of the hedge/watercourse section, more if considered necessary, and for each ride within a woodland block.

Flightline Section: 1. a) Hedgerow OR b) Watercourse

(Note - Grid references & section lengths can also be determined latterly from maps & GIS)

Grid Ref 100km Easting Northing

(6 figs min) Letters or numbers

10km 1km 100m 10m 1m 10km 1km 100m 10m 1m

Date Flightline (1-8) +

Sequential Section No.

(incl. any name/description also)

Surveyor(s): Side Surveyed - Both Y/N

Side A N E S W

Side B N E S W

NAME OF LANDOWNER/CONTACT DETAILS

Name: Address

Tel:

a - Permission granted to enter details onto database YES/NO

b - Permission granted to publish ownership information (if relevant) YES/NO

c – Interested in receiving follow-up management advice YES/NO

MANAGEMENT ADVICE

Bat flightlines:

Other elements:

2

SURVEY INFORMATION GENERAL - Hedgerows & Watercourses

WOODY VEGETATION DIMENSIONS

a - Average Height (m)

Excluding bank, to nearest 50cm

b - Average Width (m)

At the widest point of shrub canopy; excluding bank, to nearest 50cm

INTEGRITY OF WOODY VEGETATION - Continuity and height of canopy along hedgerow/watercourse

a - GAPS - linear estimates (m) of all gaps

(to nearest 50cm)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Notes on each gap location/characteristics:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Total % (nearest 5%)

b – No. of gaps >5m? c - Average height of base of canopy (m) to nearest 25cm

Side A Side B End 1 (start)

End 2 (end)

Total

CONNECTIONS - total number of other hedgerows/streams connected to each end and sides

(indicate whether Hedge or Watercourse also)

+ Number connected to woodland blocks:

MATURE STANDARD TREES (EMERGENT) Species No. of Individuals Av. Heights (m) Av. Canopy Extent

(Small/Medium/Large)

MAIN WOODY SPECIES PRESENT (in order of their cover of total vegetation) % Cover (approx. to nearest 5%)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3

IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT LAND USE (within 5 m)

Side A

Side B*

Side A

Side B*

a - Arable Arable crop e - Road/Route Major Road

Uncropped margin

Minor Road

b - Grass Improved Track (unsurfaced)

Semi-improved

Footpath

Unimproved Rail

c - Woodland Young Canal

Semi-mature f - Water River

Mature Stream

d - Other Lake/pond * Where visible

ASSOCIATED FEATURES

Side A

Side B

Hedgerows only:

a - Bank - Height (in metres) to nearest 25cm d - Ditch - external - Dry (tick)

b - Average herb vegetation height (cm) (to nearest 5cm) e - Ditch - external - Wet (tick)

c - Fence (tick) f - Ditch - internal - Dry (tick)

g - Ditch - internal - Wet (tick)

UNDISTURBED GROUND (measured from the centre of hedgerow/banktop of watercourse) Side A Side B

a - Average width of undisturbed ground (m) to nearest 50cm*

b - Average width of perennial herbaceous vegetation (m) to nearest 50cm*

c - Average width of scrub margin (m) to nearest 50cm*

d - Average distance into adjacent field of fence line (m) to nearest 50cm*

NB * mark N/A or road etc if a road or built feature or hedge is adjacent to grassland or woodland

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT OF HEDGEROW-WATERCOURSE / MARGIN (Note Side also)

a – Hedgerow-Watercourse Management Flailed/ trimmed

Coppiced Laid Planting/ Gapping

Pollarding trees

None

Signs of Recent Management <2 years

Signs of Management 2-10 years

Signs of older Management >10 years

b - Ground Management Mowing/cutting Herbicides Cultivation Grazing None

Signs of Recent Management <2 years

Signs of Management 2-10 years

c - Margin/Headland Management

Average width (m) Side A Side B*

Margin Management

Grazed Side A Side B* Cut Side A Side B* Unmanaged Side A Side B*

* Where visible

4

PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN – 2-4 along linear features, noting location & photo file numbers End 1 (start) End 2 (end)

Side A

Side B (if accessed)

Any other features

(describe)

NOTES – whole section

Incl Fauna etc. (evidence of)

5

a) Hedgerows only

HEDGEROW TYPE

a - Shrubby hedgerow b - Line of trees c - Shrubby with line of trees

HEDGEROW SHAPE

What shape is the hedgerow? - Circle diagram of cross-section that most closely resembles hedgerow.

a) Trimmed & dense b) Intensively managed c) Untrimmed d) Tall & leggy

e) Untrimmed, with outgrowth

f) Recently coppiced (facing view)

g) Recently laid

(facing view)

h) Other – Sketch

e.g. double hedgerow Features - Hedgerow (including evidence of recent planting, & presence of veteran trees & their condition, live vs dead %)

6

b) Watercourses only

Side A Side B EXTENT OF WOODY VEGETATION – choose from:

None / Isolated-scattered / Regularly spaced, single / Occasional clumps / Semi-continuous / Continuous

IN-CHANNEL SHADING & VEGETATION None / Not Visible Present >33%

SHADING

Liverworts/mosses/lichens

Emergent broad-leaved herbs

Emergent reeds/sedges/rushes/grasses/horsetails

Floating-leaved (rooted)

Free-floating

Amphibious

Submerged-leaved

Filamentous algae

Features - Watercourse (including evidence of presence of veteran trees & their condition, live vs dead %; channel management (detail) and apparent water quality (signs of water pollution e.g. algal build-up, detergent foam)?

7

Flightline Section: 2. Woodland block

A representative amount of the wood should be investigated, noting relevant features, prior to completing the form. (Note - Grid references can also be determined latterly from maps & GIS)

Grid Ref

(6 figs min)

100km Easting Northing

Letters or numbers

10km 1km 100m 10m 1m 10km 1km 100m 10m 1m

Date Flightline +

Sequential Section No.

(incl. any name/description also)

Surveyor(s):

NAME OF LANDOWNER/CONTACT DETAILS

Name: Address

Tel:

a - Permission granted to enter details onto database YES/NO

b - Permission granted to publish ownership information (if relevant) YES/NO

c – Interested in receiving follow-up management advice YES/NO

MANAGEMENT ADVICE

Bat flightlines:

Other elements:

8

SURVEY INFORMATION (Woodland) WOODLAND TYPE

a – Native broadleaved(/yew)

b – Mixed Broadleaved/ Conifer

c – Conifer plantation

WOODLAND

LAYERS

AVERAGE

HEIGHTS (to

nearest 1m)

DENSITY (Dense

/ Medium / Open)

STRUCTURE

(Diverse / Medium /

Uniform)

COMPOSITION -

WOODY SPECIES (in order

of approx. % cover of

vegetation)

Canopy layer 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Woody shrub layer 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

OTHER HABITATS PRESENT - within the wood (e.g. grass glades, bracken, streams, etc.). Detail:

Rides/trackways/footpaths evident? (potential flightlines) RIDE NO. ORIENTATION

(N/E/S/W)

APPROX. AV. WIDTH

(m)

VEGETATION COVER (Open / Partial cover

/ Enclosed)

1.

2.

3.

4.

CONNECTIONS - total number of connections to wood block No.

Hedgerows

Watercourses

9

WOODLAND MANAGEMENT Current Past-recent Past-neglected

Exclosure EXCL

Planting PL

Thinning TH

Other felling OF

Coppicing/pollarding COP

Ground preparation GPN

Drainage DRN

Timber extraction EXTR

Domestic grazing DGZ

Game management/shooting GMN

Glade/ride management GRM

Recreation REC

IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT LAND USE (within 5 m)

a - Arable Arable crop e - Road/Route Major Road

Uncropped margin

Minor Road

b - Grass Improved Track (unsurfaced)

Semi-improved

Footpath

Unimproved Rail

c - Woodland Young Canal

Semi-mature f - Water River

Mature Stream

d - Other Lake/pond

PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN – noting photo file numbers Internal woodland view(s)

Ride(s)

Any other features (describe)

NOTES – Whole wood

a - Fauna (evidence of)

b - Features (conservation interest, including veteran trees & deadwood features)

APPENDIX 2 - Hedges & Watercourses dataSection Side(s) Type Easting Northing Survey date Land holding Length (m) Canopy H Canopy W Canopy CS Canopy Base H No. Gaps(all)Gaps L (tot)Gaps % H-S Connections No. (tot hedge/stream)Wd Connections No. (tot woods)No. Trees Woody Spp (rank order) Land Use adj (A / B) Bank H (A,B) Herb H (A,B) Fence/Ditch Ground W cm (A,B)Herb W cm (A,B)Scrub W cm (A,B)Fence D cm (A,B)Veg mgmt Grnd mgmt Margin W cm (A,B)Margin mgmt (A,B)Photos (Ends 1,2,Other)Hedge: Type,Shape,Features Wcourse: Woody Veg,Shade,Aquatics,Features 199 Status

2A-1 N(A), S(B) WC 498270 127600 04/09/2007 Butcherland Farm 244 5.5 1 5.5 25 0 0% 1 1 6 Ca, Sx, Ac, Fe, Qu, Fe G I (A), G S/I (B) 100 20 D (B) 200(A), 200(B) 150(A), 100(B) 100(B) 200(B) NONE M/C (A), G (B) 50(A), 100(B) C (A), U (B) W, E C (A&B) Inadequate flightline cover2A-2 N(A), S(B) WC 498520 127570 04/09/2007 Butcherland Farm 332 5 1 5 25 1 10 3% 1 0 11 Ca, Sx, Aq, Ps, Ac G I (A), G S/I (B), Caravan site (A), Minor rd1.5 100 100(A) 50(A) 50(A) NONE MC (A) 50(A) C (A), U (B) W, E S-C(A), C(B) shading >33% Inadequate flightline cover2A-3 S(A) WC 498680 127680 04/09/2007 Roger Wood (absentee) 180 12 1 12 50 1 8 4% 2 1 6 Fe, Sx, Qu, Ca, Ps G I (A&B), W M (B), Minor rd 50 150(A) 50(A) NONE MC 50(A) U (A) W, E S-C (A) shading >33% Inadequate flightline cover2A-4 S(A) WC 498930 127740 04/09/2007 SWT Butcherland 560 7 1.5 10.5 50 5 20 4% 3 1 7 Fe, Sx, Ps, Qu, Aq G S/I(A), G I(B?), W Y (A) 2 (A&B) 50(A), 10(B) F (A&B) 10(A), 1(B) 10(A), 0(B) 150(A), 50(B) 10(A), 0(B) NONE None (A), G(B) 20(A), 0(B) U (A) W, E S-C(A&B) shading >33% Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas2A-5 W(A) WC 499220 127470 04/09/2007 SWT Butcherland 556 6 1.5 9 50 3 16 3% 4 4 8 Sx, Fe, Ps, Qu, Ca, G S/I (A&B) 3.5 (A&B) 50(A) F 14(A), 14(A) 250(A) 500(A) NONE NONE 1400(A) U(A) N, S S-C(A&B) shading >33% Good flightlines and forage areas2A-11 S(A), N(B) H 500260 128640 11/08/2008 Thornhouse Farm 438 5.5 2 11 0 0% 0 2 4 Qu, Fe, Ac, Ps G I (A&B), W S/M (A) 100(A), 50(B) 0(A) F (B), D 300(A), 200(B) 0(B) NONE MC 200(A), 200(B) C (A&B) W, E Shrubs & Trees, Untrimmed Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas2A-12 S(A), N(B) H 500640 128560 20/10/2008 Accolds Farm 283 10 10 100 150 1 20 7% 0 2 Qu, Ca, Ac G I (A), W M (A), G SI (B) 0 5 (A&B) F(B), D 0 0 50(B) FT, COP MC, G 0 G (A&B) NW,SE Shrubs & Trees, Tall & Leggy, margin cut back firewood Inadequate flightline cover

2B-8 S (A) H 499860 127720 27/09/2008 Kiln Copse Farm 270 2 2 4 25 0 0% 2 1 25 Ps, Cm, Ac, Rosa G I (A&B), Track 50(B) 10(A) F(A) 100(A) 0 0 FT MC, G NW Shrubs & Trees, Trimmed and Dense (with Standards) Inadequate flightline cover2B-9 E(A) H 500060 127730 06/08/2008 Beal House Farm 191 4 3 12 50 0 0% 3 1 7 Cm, Ps, Ac, Qu, Sx G S/I(A), Garden (B) 50 100 F, D 250 100 100 NONE G 100(A) G(A) W, N Shrubs & Trees, Untrimmed (formerly laid, outgrown) Inadequate flightline cover2B-11 N(A), S(B) H 500380 127750 06/08/2008 Great Slifehurst 'Farm' 283 1 1 1 0 0% 1 1 13 Ps, Cm, Ac, Rosa G I(A&B), Minor road(A) 30(B) F(B) 100(A), 50(B) 250(A), 50(B) 0 0 FT MC 50(A), 50(B) C (A&B) W, E Shrubs & Trees, Intensively managed Inadequate flightline cover2B-12 S(A) H 500630 127730 06/08/2008 Copse Cottage Farm 199 1 1 1 0 0% 2 1 10 Ps, Cm, Ac, Ca G SI (A), G I (B), W M (B), Minor road75 60 100 50 FT MC 50 C(A), G(B) W, E Shrubs & Trees, Intensively managed Inadequate flightline cover2B-13 N(A), S(B) H 500930 127640 06/08/2008 Belchamber Farm 522 2 1.5 3 5 270 52% 3 0 8 Ps, Cm, Ac, Rosa G I (A&B), Track 50(A) 100(A) 250(A), 100(B) 200(A), 100+(B) 50(B) 200(B) FT MC 200(A) C(A), G(B) W, Mid, E Shrubby Hedgerow, Trimmed and Dense (infrequently) Inadequate flightline cover2B-14 S(A), N(B) H 501300 127600 06/08/2008 Belchamber Farm 253 1.5 1.5 2.25 0 0% 2 1 15 Ps, Ca, Rosa G S/I(A),G I(B), Minor Rd, pond D 150(A), 100(B) 100+ (A&B) 50(A), 50(B) NONE NONE G(A), C(B) W, E Shrubs & Trees, Trimmed and Dense Inadequate flightline cover

3-1 S(A) H 498770 127270 11/09/2007 SWT Butcherland 472 4 2 8 50 3 26 6% 4 2 2 Ca, Sx, Ps, Fe, Rf G SI (A&B) 40 F, D 200(A), 600(B) 200(A), 600(B) 50(A) 250(A), 600(B) NONE NONE 100(A) U (A&B) W, E Shrubby Hedgerow, Untrimmed with Outgrowth Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas3-2 N(A) H 498780 127000 11/09/2007 SWT Butcherland 143 2.5 1.5 3.75 1 2 1% 3 3 0 Ca, Sx, Ps, Ac, Fe G S/I (A),Track(B) 50(A&B) 35(A), 10(B) F(A) 600(A) 600(A) 200(A) 600(A) NONE(A), FT(B) NONE(A), MC(B) 600(A), 100(B) U(A), C(B) W,E Shrubby Hedgerow, Untrimmed with Outgrowth Inadequate flightline cover3-4 S(A) H 499200 127220 11/09/2007 Moor Farm 319 5 10 50 50 0 0% 1 1 10 Sx sallow, Fe, Qu, Ps, Sx OsierA A/C (A), A U/M(A), G S/I(B), Footpath (A) 70(A) F (A&B), D 50(A), 100+(B) 400(A), 100+(B) FT(A) MC 400(A) C(A), G(B) W,E Shrubs & Trees, Untrimmed (A), with Outgrowth (B) (wet hollows along & large oak in E) Good flightlines and forage areas, Inadequate flightline cover3-5 S(A), N&E(B) WC (/W) 499390 127290 11/09/2007 Moor Farm 439 8 1.5 12 150 1 7 2% 2 1 14 Sx sallow, Fe, Qu, Ps, Pop G S/I (A&B), A AC (A), Footpath (A) 150(A), 250(B)80(A), 30(B) F(B) 50(B) 100(A) 100(B) NONE(A) NONE(A), G(B) U(A),G(B) NW,SE C(A) shading >33% (2 large oaks with dead limbs present) Good flightlines and forage areas3-6 N(A) WC 499650 127140 27/09/2007 Kiln Copse Farm 214 4 1 4 100 1 4 2% 1 1 9 Sx, Ps, Ac, Fe, Rosa/Rf GS/I(A), A AC (B), A U/M (B) 250(A) 60(A) F(A) 100 (A) 50 (A) 100 (A) 100 (A) FT MC (silage), G 150 (A), 200 (B)C&G(A) NW,SE S-C(A&B), shading>33%, No veg (flashy flow) Good flightlines and forage areas3-8 E(A) H 499680 126980 05/10/2007 Moor Farm 213 4 3.5 14 50 0 0% 3 2 11 Ca, Ps, Ac, Sx, Rf G S/I(A&B), A U/M (B) 25(A) D 100(B) 100(B) 100(A) 0 NONE NONE 200 (B) U(A), C(B) N, S Shrubs & Trees, Untrimmed with Outgrowth Good flightlines and forage areas3-9 W(A), E(B) WC 499750 126780 05/10/2007 Moor Farm 461 4.5 0.5 2.25 75 7 123 27% 3 1 1 Sx sallow, Fe G S/I(A), W Y Planted (B) 200(A), 150(B)50(A) 150(A) 0 0 NONE MC C?(A) N, S S/C, shading>33% (varied river with pools & riffles) Good flightlines and forage areas

3-10 W(A) WC 500010 126600 05/10/2007 Moor Farm 432 4 0.5 2 100 9 69 16% 2 0 2 Sx, Others G SI(A), A UM (A), GI? (B), River 250(A), 200(B)40(A) F(B) 50(A) 200(A) 0 0 FT MC 200(A) C(A) N , S S/C (A&B), shading>33% Failing cover on flightlines3-11 W(A) WC 500150 126380 05/10/2007 Moor Farm 325 4 0.5 2 7 158 49% 3 2 2 Sx, Others A AC(A), A U/M(A), G S/I (B) 100(A&B) 20 F(B) 0 200(A) 0 0 NONE MC 200(A) C(A), U(B) N, S O/C(A), S/C(B) Failing cover on flightlines3-12 W(A) WC 500390 126080 05/10/2007 Moor Farm 492 3.5 0 0 75 6 527 100% 2 4 4 Sx, Ac, Ps G S/I (A&B), A U/M(A),W M(B), footpath125(A&B) 0 0 200(A) 0 0 NONE MC 200(A) C(A), U(B) N, SE I/S(A), S/C(B) shading<33%, emergent & floating-leaved aquatics present Failing cover on flightlines3-13 N(A) WC 500700 125980 05/10/2007 Sladelands 329 2 1.5 3 25 5 248 75% 2 3 8 Ps, Rf, Sx, Fe G SI (A&B), W M (A), River 85(A) 30(A) 0 0 NONE NONE? C / U (A) W, E I-S(A), no shading, emergent & floating-leaved aquatics present Failing cover on flightlines3-14 N(A) WC 500800 126110 05/10/2007 Sladelands 136 0 0 0 1 135 99% 0 0 0 MC? C / U (A) W, E I-S(A), no shading, emergent & floating-leaved aquatics present Failing cover on flightlines

TOTALS 8286 57 1643 20% 183

Hedge / Watercourse H - Height W - Width CS - Cross sectional area L - Length (Phase 1 codes) F / D (various)(undisturbed) D - Distance Recent (< 2 yrs) Recent (< 2 yrs)

APPENDIX 3 - Woodland dataSection Type Easting Northing Survey date Land holding Wood TypeAREA (ha) Canopy Layer H / D / SCanopy Spp Shrub Layer H / D / SShrub Spp Other Habitats No. Rides No. Connections Management - Curr / Past r / Past n Land Use adj Photos (Internal,Ride,Other)Wood Features 1998 Status

2A-6 W 499160 127790 11/08/2008 Hills Green Farm House N 1.1 16, M, M Qu, Fe, St 4, O-M, M Cm, Ca, Ia 1 1 C (GRM) G I, W M, River I, R, O wild service tree Good flightlines and forage areas2A-7 W 499360 127930 11/08/2008 Mereside Farm N 0.275 14, M, M Qu, Ac, Fe, St 4, O-M, M Cm, Ca, 2 C (DGZ), PR (OF) G I I, O 1 wild service tree (part cut) Good flightlines and forage areas2A-8 W 499400 128090 11/08/2008 Hills Green N 0.63 16, M, M Qu, Fe, Ac 5, O, M Ca, Cm, Ia 1 PR (REC) G I, G S/I I Badger workings, Old wood bank Good flightlines and forage areas2A-9 W 499490 128360 11/08/2008 Hills Green N 6.275 16, O, M Qu, Fe 5, O, M Ca, Ia, Cm Open patches - scrub encroachment 1 PN (OF) G S/I, RR Minor rd, River I, R Badger tracks & lots butterflies, moths & birds Good flightlines and forage areas2A-10 W 499840 128380 11/08/2008 Thornhouse farm N 5.1 20, M, M Qu, Fe, Fs, Hornbeam 6-8, D, D Ca, Cm, Ia, Ac Wet stream coridor (lots small fallen deadwood) 1 1 C (OF, GPN), PR (OF), PN (COP) G I, Minor rd I, R Neglected ex-coppice, outgrown ash and hornbeam at E end. Humid, lots of ferns. Good flightlines and forage areas2A-13 W 500810 128530 20/10/2008 National Trust N 3.2 14, D, M Qu, Fe, Ac, Fs 5, D, D Ca, Cm, Ia Small stream corridor runs through S-N 2 NONE G S/I, Stream, Lake I, O Quite a lot of deadwood down & accumulating Inadequate flightline cover2A-14 W 501150 128620 18/08/2008 Whithurst Park N 10.1 15, O-M, M-U Qu, Fe, Cons 4, D-M, M-U Fe, Ca, Ac, Cm Stream from North. New apple grove planted in NE. 2 2 C (PL,TH,OF) G I, W M, Stream, Lake I, R Large Oak at W end of lake, which extends into the wood proper. Inadequate flightline cover

2B-6 W 499510 127430 27/09/2007 Kiln Copse Farm N 1.97 17, D, U-M Qr, Ac, Fe, 4, O, M Ca, Ia, Cm 2 C (GMN), PR (firewood), PN (TH) G I, G S/I I Vehicle farm track N top end divides rew but covered by oak canopy (open grown) Good flightlines and forage areas, Inadequate flightline cover2B-7 W 499650 127660 27/09/2007 Kiln Copse Farm N 3.2 18, D, M-U Fe, Qu, Ac, Fs 4, M, M Ca, Cm, (Ia), Fe, Ac 1 6 PR (TH), PR(OF), PR(COP), PN(COP), PR(GMN), PR(Firewood) G I R SW end more natural, older trees, diverse structure. Above is dense uniform tall old Ash coppice. Good flightlines and forage areas2B-10 W 500180 127760 06/08/2008 Beal House Farm N 1.68 18, D, U Qu, Norway Maple 6, M, M Ca, Cm, Norway Maple, Ia, Ac Wood bank at E end, 2 streams 3 C(OF), C(GPN), C(EXTR), C(REC) G I, W M, Garden, Minor road, Track I, O Ancient woodland with Violet Helleborine Inadequate flightline cover2B-15 W 501510 127590 06/08/2008 Leconfield Estate N 4.55 14, M-D, M-U Qu 6, M, M Cm, Ia, Ca, Ac, Ps, (Ap) Glades, bracken, semi-dry streams, wet inundation pool. 1 6 PN(GPN) G I, Minor road, Stream I, R Varied wood in different stages of maturity & naturalness (W of road better?) Inadequate flightline cover, Good flightlines and forage areas

3-3 W 498940 127300 11/09/2007 SWT Butcherland N 2.03 8, M, U Ca, Fe, Cs, Sx sallow 3, D, M Ca, Ps, Sx sallow 1 4 C(EXCL), C(REC), PN(COP) G S/I, G U, Track I, R Lots of Rabbit burrows. Sedum wild iceplant. Wood bank at E end. Good flightlines and forage areas, Inadequate flightline cover3-7 W 499730 127080 27/09/2007 Kiln Copse Fm N 0.025 17, O, U Fe, Qu, Bet 4, O, M Qu, Fe, Cherry, Ps, Ca Open grassland patches (small) between planted young trees. 2 C(GMN), C(REC), PR(PL) G S/I I Good flightlines and forage areas3-15 W 500970 126170 05/10/2007 Parsonage Farm M 4.84 20, D, U Fe, Qu, Spruce, Cherry 4, O, M Cm, Ac, Ca open ruderal strip SW along river c. 5 m wide 2 1 PN(PL), PN (wind blow) G SI (A), G I (B), River I, R, O Very uniform. Failing cover on flightlines

Height / Density / Structure Current / Past recent / Past neglect