Land North of Llantrisant Road, Creigiau · 2019. 7. 1. · 25 June 2019 . Disclaimer . This ......

Land North of Llantrisant Road, Creigiau Technical Appendix 8.7: Great Crested Newt Survey 2018

BLANK PAGE

Issuing office Merlin House | No 1 Langstone Business Park | Newport | NP18 2HJ T: 01633 509000 | W: www.bsg-ecology.com | E: [email protected]

Client R M R Wingfield (Great Barrington, Oxfordshire)

Project Land North of Llantrisant Road, Creigiau

Version Pre-application consultation draft

Project number P17-084 Creigiau GCN Survey 2018

Name Position Date

Originated Charlotte Alsop Ecologist 08 October 2018

Reviewed Caroline O’Rourke Senior Ecologist 23 October 2018

Reviewed Peter Newbold Principal Ecologist 16 January 2019

Issued to client as draft Caroline O’Rourke Senior Ecologist 11 March 2019

PAC draft approved and issued to client

Owain Gabb Partner 25 June 2019

Disclaimer

This report is issued to the client for their sole use and for the intended purpose as stated in the agreement between the client and BSG Ecology under which this work was completed, or else as set out within this report. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written agreement of BSG Ecology. The use of this report by unauthorised third parties is at their own risk and BSG Ecology accepts no duty of care to any such third party.

BSG Ecology has exercised due care in preparing this report. It has not, unless specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the content of this report and BSG Ecology assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omissions or misrepresentation made by others.

Any recommendation, opinion or finding stated in this report is based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time that BSG Ecology performed the work. The content of this report has been provided in accordance with the provisions of the CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct. BSG Ecology works where appropriate to the scope of our brief, to the principles and requirements of British Standard BS42020.

Nothing in this report constitutes legal opinion. If legal opinion is required the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured. Observations relating to the state of built structures or trees have been made from an ecological point of view and, unless stated otherwise, do not constitute structural or arboricultural advice.

Derbyshire Oxford Newcastle Newport Swansea Cambridge | BSG Ecology is a trading name of Baker Shepherd Gillespie LLP

Registered in: England and Wales | No. OC328772 | Registered address: Merlin House No1 Langstone Business Park Newport, NP18 2HJ

Land South of Creigiau

1 25/06/2019

Contents 1 Background, aims and methods .................................................................................................................... 2 2 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

3 References .................................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Photographs .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Appendix 1: SureScreen Scientifics eDNA report .............................................................................................. 12


2 25/06/2019

1 Background, aims and methods

Background

1.1 This technical appendix has been prepared in connection with the proposed development of Land north of Llantrisant Road, Creigiau (the ‘Site’).

1.2 The Site forms Strategic Site E of the adopted Local Development Plan for Cardiff and is located directly to the south of the village of Creigiau, approximately 10km west of Cardiff city centre. The southern boundary of the Site borders Llantrisant Road (A4119), beyond which is currently open countryside. The eastern boundary of the Site is formed by Cardiff Road which is one of the main routes from Llantrisant Road into the village of Creigiau.

Aims

1.3 Great crested newt Triturus cristatus (GCN) survey was undertaken at the Site with the following aims:

• To determine the presence or likely absence of GCN from the Site.

• To identify any potential constraints that GCN may pose to the delivery of the proposed development, including any requirement for mitigation or licencing.

Desk study

1.4 The South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre (SEWBReC) was asked to provide records of non-statutory designated sites and records of protected and notable species and habitats within 2 km of the Site boundary in March 2018. Detailed information from SEWBReC can be provided on request. The most relevant results are summarised within this report.

1.5 Aerial photographs and mapping (Bing Maps, accessed March 2018) of the Site and its surroundings were reviewed to identify ponds within 250 m and assess the landscape context of the Site. The proposed development is unlikely to affect GCN populations outside of the Site boundary, and the Site has very little suitable terrestrial habitat for GCN. For these reasons, ponds beyond 250 m were excluded from the desk study and from further survey.

1.6 Background information on the Site and wider ecological context was also collected. This included a review of survey reports produced by Wildwood Ecology in 2013 covering the western half of the Site along with ecological information associated with the nearby J33 development1.

Field survey

1.7 All GCN surveys were conducted with reference to industry standard guidance (English Nature, 2001) and were led by licenced surveyors.

Habitat Suitability Index survey

1.8 A GCN Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) score was derived for suitable waterbodies within 250 m of the Site (see Figure 8.12) by applying a scoring system developed by the Herpetological Conservation Trust (HCT, 2008). The suitability index is calculated by allocating scores to features associated with each waterbody; these include size, water quality and macrophyte cover. These scores are then used to calculate the overall HSI for each waterbody as a number between 0 and 1, with 0 being the least suitable and 1 being the most suitable.

1 Freely available via the planning portal at https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_CARDIFF_DCAPR_107951&activeTab=summary


3 25/06/2019

1.9 The HSI score allows each pond to be placed in one of five categories defining its suitability for GCN as follows:

• 0.8 = excellent

eDNA survey

1.10 Pond 1 was surveyed using an eDNA sampling technique in accordance with the published methods (Williams, 2013) presented in DEFRA’s Technical Advice Note WC1067 (Biggs et al. 2014) on 3 May 2018. The weather had been suitable for the GCN survey throughout the two week period prior to the sample day (i.e. overnight temperatures generally above 5°C).

1.11 Water samples were sent to SureScreen Scientifics for analysis in line with the protocol stated in DEFRA WC1067 (Biggs et al. 2014).

Personnel

1.12 The project team for the GCN survey work included the following:

1.13 Caroline O’Rourke PGDip ACIEEM: Caroline is a Senior Ecologist with BSG Ecology and is the project manager for this project. Caroline has nine years of professional experience in ecology, is proficient in GCN survey and holds survey licences for GCN in both England and Wales (Natural Resources Wales (NRW) GCN licence number 75242:OTH:CSAB:2017). Caroline was responsible for undertaking the eDNA survey and some of the HSI assessments and is the technical reviewer of this report.

1.14 Gareth Lang BSc MSc ACIEEM: Gareth is a Senior Ecologist with BSG Ecology. Gareth has over five years of professional experience in ecology, is proficient in GCN survey and holds survey licences for GCN in both England and Wales (NRW GCN licence number 71878:OTH:SA:2016). Gareth’s role in this project was to undertake HSI assessments of the waterbodies on Site.

1.15 Charlotte Alsop BSc MRes: Charlotte is an Ecologist with BSG Ecology. Charlotte joined BSG Ecology in March 2018, having previously worked as a field ecologist for the company in 2016, and is the author of this report. Charlotte has experience with GCN survey and is working towards obtaining her GCN licence. Charlotte’s role in this project was to assist with HSI surveys.

Limitations to methods

1.16 No limitations to the survey methods were recorded.


4 25/06/2019

2 Results

Summary

2.1 No records for GCN were returned by SEWBReC from within 370 m of the Site. Wildwood Ecology (2013) detected no evidence of GCN in any waterbodies on Site in 2013.

2.2 Fieldwork carried out by BSG Ecology in 2018, including eDNA testing, supports the conclusion drawn from the desk study that GCN are likely absent from the Site.

Desk study

2.3 Three records for GCN were returned by SEWBReC from within the 2 km search area. The nearest record (from 2003) is of two adult GCN approximately 0.37 km south of the Site. All other records were over 1.5 km from the Site.

2.4 No GCN were detected in ponds or ditches on Site by Wildwood Ecology in 2013.

2.5 The desk study and subsequent site walkover recorded five waterbodies within the Site boundary: one pond (Pond 2), two streams (Stream A and B) and two ditches (Ditch A and B). Ditch A and Ditch B had not previously been surveyed by Wildwood Ecology in 2013. One pond was located within 250 m of the Site (Pond 1). No other waterbodies are present within 250 m. The location of each waterbody is shown on Figure 8.12.

Field survey

Habitat Suitability Index Survey (HSI)

2.6 HSI assessments for Pond 1, the two streams and the two ditches were carried out by Gareth Lang on 12 April 2018. Caroline O’Rourke carried out the HSI assessment for Pond 2 on 29 May 2018. Detailed results of the HSI assessment are given in Table 1, and photographs of each waterbody are provided in Section 3.

2.7 Pond 1 was assessed to be of ‘excellent’ suitability for GCN and was subsequently subject to eDNA survey.

2.8 Pond 2 and Ditch B were assessed to be of ‘below average’ suitability for GCN. Both waterbodies held very little water at the time of the HSI assessment, and were considered likely to be dry in late spring and summer. This would make them unsuitable for bottle trapping or eDNA survey, and would likely be unsuitable for breeding GCN. No records for GCN had been returned by SEWBReC for either waterbody, and Wildwood Ecology had not recorded GCN in Pond 2 in 2013. No further surveys were considered necessary, and Pond 2 and Ditch B were scoped out of the assessment.

2.9 Stream A was also assessed as ‘below average’ suitability for GCN. The stream was shallow and had been dry on a previous visit to Site2. A culvert feeds in to the northern end of the stream, taking surface water run-off from the housing estate. The stream was too shallow to carry out bottle trapping or eDNA survey, and was considered likely to remain shallow or dry up during the GCN breeding season. No GCN were recorded in Stream A by Wildwood Ecology in 2013, and the condition of the stream had remained the same (assessed as ‘below average’ in both 2013 and 2018). It was therefore unlikely that GCN would be breeding in the stream, and it was scoped out of the assessment at this stage.

2.10 Ditch A (dry) and Stream B (fast flowing) were considered to be unsuitable for GCN and therefore were not subject to a full HSI assessment or further survey.

2 This was reported by Gareth Lang during the course of an ecological survey.


5 25/06/2019

Table 1: HSI results, scores and suitability categories

HSI scores for each descriptor are provided in brackets after each result

Waterbody Ref.

Descriptor Pond 1 Pond 2 Stream A Stream B Ditch A Ditch B

Geographic location A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1)

Pond Area (m2) 235.5 (0.45) 150 (0.25) 50 (0.05) 280 (0.55) 90 (0.1) 157 (0.3)

Permanence Rarely dries (1)

Frequently dries (0.1)



Water Quality Good (1) Poor (0.33) Good (1)

Moderate (0.67)

Shade (% of margin shaded 1m from bank) 10 (1) 90 (0.4) 10 (1)

100 (0.2)

Waterfowl Absent (1) Absent (1) Absent (1) Absent (1)

Fish Absent (1) Absent (1) Absent (1) Absent (1)

Pond Count 12 12 12 12

Terrestrial Habitat Good (1) Good (1) Good (1) Good (1)

Macrophyte Cover 30 (0.61) 20 (0.51) 30 (0.61) 5 (0.36)

HSI Score 0.88 0.53 0.56 N/A N/A 0.52

Suitability Category Excellent Below Average

Below Average N/A N/A

Below Average

eDNA survey

2.11 The results of the eDNA laboratory tests were returned as negative for GCN by SureScreen Scientifics on 8 May 2018. This indicates that GCN are likely to be absent from Pond 1. The full technical report issued by SureScreen can be found in Appendix 1.


6 25/06/2019

3 References

Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Defra Project WC1067. Freshwater Habitats Trust: Oxford.

English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough, English Nature.

Wildwood Ecology (2013). Great Crested Newt and Reptile Survey Report.

Williams, P. (2013). How to collect a water sample to detect Great Crested Newt eDNA.


7 25/06/2019

4 Photographs

Photograph 1: Pond 1 (off site)

Photograph 2: Pond 1 (off site)


8 25/06/2019

Photograph 3: Pond 2 (some shallow pooling)

Photograph 4: Stream A (shallow)


9 25/06/2019

Photograph 5: culvert into Stream A

Photograph 5: Stream B (fast flowing)


10 25/06/2019

Photograph 5: Ditch A (dry) Photograph 6: Ditch B (some shallow pooling)


11 25/06/2019

Figure 8.12 – Locations of waterbodies within 250 m of the Site.

(overleaf)

Ditch D

Stre am A

Ditch C

Stre am B

P1

P2

Sourc e : Esri, DigitalGlob e , Ge oEye , Earthstar Ge ograp hics, CN ES/Airb us DS, USDA, USGS, Ae roGRID, IGN , and the GISUse r Com m unityC:\Users\cian\Documents\workingfiles\roost.bsg-ecology.com\084 Creigiau\084 Spatial data_1.5\BBS_and_Ponds\084 fig 2 pond ditch locations.mxd

PROJECT TITLELAN D SOUTH OF CREIGIAU

DRAW IN G TITLEFigure 8.12: Pond and d itch locations

DATE:DRAW N : APPROVED:

CHECKED:VERSION :SCALE:

JOB REF:P17-084

1.31:5,250

JGCA21.06.2019

COH

Cop yright © BSG Ec ologyN o d im e nsions are to b e scale d from this d rawing.All d im e nsions are to b e c he cke d on site .Are a m e asure m e nts for ind icative p urp ose s only.This d rawing m ay c ontain: Ord nanc e Surve y m ate rial b y p e rm ission of Ord nanc e Surve y on b e halfof the Controlle r of He r Maje sty’s Statione ry Offic e © Crown Cop yright 2019. All rights re se rve d .Re fe re nc e num b e r: OS Op e n d ata © Crown c op yright and d atab ase right 2019 | Ae rial Photograp hy © EsriSourc e s:BSG Ec ology surve y d ata

100489800 500m¯

LEGEND

Site b ound aryPond (gre at cre ste d ne wt like lyab se nt)Ditc h (gre at cre ste d ne wt like lyab se nt)Stre am (gre at cre ste d ne wt like lyab se nt)250 m rad ius from p ond s and d itc he s

OFFICE:T:01633 509 000N e wp ort


12 25/06/2019

Appendix 1: SureScreen Scientifics eDNA report

(overleaf)

Forensic Scientists and Consultant EngineersSureScreen Scientifics Division Ltd, Morley Retreat, Church Lane, Morley, Derbyshire, DE7 6DE

UK Tel: +44 (0)1332 292003 Email: [email protected] Registration No. 08950940

Page 1 of 3

Folio No: E2719Report No:Order No: COR03-05-18Client: BSG ECOLOGY LTDContact: Caroline O'RourkeContact Details: [email protected]: 08/05/2018

TECHNICAL REPORT

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DNA IN POND WATER FOR THEDETECTION OF GREAT CRESTED NEWTS

Date sample received at Laboratory: 04/05/2018Date Reported: 08/05/2018Matters Affecting Results:

RESULTSLab Sample

No.Site Name O/S Reference SIC DC IC Result Positive

Replicates

1423 P17-084 ST07778120 Pass Pass Pass Negative 0

SUMMARY

When Great Crested Newts (GCN); Triturus cristatus inhabit a pond, they deposit traces of theirDNA in the water as evidence of their presence. By sampling the water, we can analyse thesesmall environmental DNA (eDNA) traces to confirm GCN habitation, or establish GCN absence.

The water samples detailed below were submitted for eDNA analysis to the protocol stated inDEFRA WC1067 (Latest Amendments). Details on the sample submission form were used as theunique sample identity.

RESULTS INTERPRETATION

Lab Sample No.- When a kit is made it is given a unique sample number. When the pond samples have been taken and the kit has



Page 2 of 3

been received back in to the laboratory, this sample number is tracked throughout the laboratory.

Site Name- Information on the pond.

O/S Reference – Location/co-ordinates of pond.

SIC- Sample Integrity Check. Refers to quality of packaging, absence of tube leakage, suitability of sample (not too much mud orweed etc.) and absence of any factors that could potentially lead to results errors. Inspection upon receipt of sample at thelaboratory. To check if the Sample is of adequate integrity when received. Pass or Fail.

DC- Degradation Check. Analysis of the spiked DNA marker to see if there has been degradation of the kit since made in thelaboratory to sampling to analysis. Pass or Fail.

IC- Inhibition Check- PCR inhibitors can cause false results. Inhibitors are analysed to check the quality of the result. Every effortis made to clean the sample pre-analysis however some inhibitors cannot be extracted. An unacceptable inhibition check willcause an indeterminate sample and must be sampled again.

Result- NEGATIVE means that GCN eDNA was not detected or is below the threshold detection level and the test result should beconsidered as no evidence of GCN presence. POSITIVE means that GCN eDNA was found at or above the threshold level and thepresence of GCN at this location at the time of sampling or in the recent past is confirmed. Positive or Negative.

Positive Replicates- To generate the results all of the tubes from each pond are combined to produce one eDNA extract. Thentwelve separate analyses are undertaken. If one or more of these analyses are positive the pond is declared positive for thepresence of GCN. It may be assumed that small fractions of positive analyses suggest low level presence but this cannot currentlybe used for population studies. In accordance with Natural England protocol, even a score of 1/12 is declared positive.

METHODOLOGY

The laboratory testing adheres to strict guidelines laid down in WC1067 Analytical and Methodological Development for ImprovedSurveillance of The Great Crested Newt, Version 1.1

The analysis is conducted in two phases. The sample first goes through an extraction process where all six tubes are pooledtogether to acquire as much eDNA as possible. The pooled sample is then tested via real time PCR (also called q-PCR). Thisprocess amplifies select part of DNA allowing it to be detected and measured in ‘real time’ as the analytical process develops.qPCR combines PCR amplification and detection into a single step. This eliminates the need to detect products using gelelectrophoresis. With qPCR, fluorescent dyes specific to the target sequence are used to label PCR products during thermalcycling. The accumulation of fluorescent signals during the exponential phase of the reaction is measured for fast and objectivedata analysis. The point at which amplification begins (the Ct value) is an indicator of the quality of the sample. True positivecontrols, negatives and blanks as well as spiked synthetic DNA are included in every analysis and these have to be correct beforeany result is declared so they act as additional quality control measures.

The primers used in this process are specific to a part of mitochondrial DNA only found in GCN ensuring no DNA from otherspecies present in the water is amplified. The unique sequence appropriate for GCN analysis is quoted in DEFRA WC 1067 andmeans there should be no detection of closely related species. We have tested our system exhaustively to ensure this is the case inour laboratory. We can offer eDNA analysis for most other species including other newts.

Analysis of eDNA requires scrupulous attention to detail to prevent risk of contamination. Kits are manufactured by SureScreenScientifics to strict quality procedures in a separate building and with separate staff, adopting best practice from WC1067 andWC1067 Appendix 5. Kits contain a ‘spiked’ DNA marker used as a quality control tracer (SureScreen patent pending) to ensureany DNA contained in the sampled water has not deteriorated in transit. Stages of the DNA analysis are also conducted indifferent buildings at our premises for added



Page 3 of 3

SureScreen Scientifics Ltd also participate in Natural England’s proficiency testing scheme and we also carry out inter-laboratorychecks on accuracy of results as part of our quality procedures.

Reported by: Derry Hickman Approved by: Sam Humphrey

End Of Report

1 Background, aims and methodsBackgroundAimsDesk studyField surveyHabitat Suitability Index surveyeDNA survey

PersonnelLimitations to methods

2 ResultsSummaryDesk studyField surveyHabitat Suitability Index Survey (HSI)eDNA survey

3 References4 PhotographsAppendix 1: SureScreen Scientifics eDNA report

Land North of Llantrisant Road, Creigiau · 2019. 7. 1. · 25 June 2019 . Disclaimer . This ......

Documents

Transcript of Land North of Llantrisant Road, Creigiau · 2019. 7. 1. · 25 June 2019 . Disclaimer . This ......