RAUK - Archived Forum - The rough guide to reptile mitigation....

Or would be be named the unofficial reptile mitigation guidelines....

Anyway carrying on from the reptile survey best practice/guidance we are now going to look at reptile mitigation.

This guidance is aimed at development related projects which affect the conservation status of reptiles. The guidance also relates to the widespread reptile species and not the rare species - sand lizard & smooth snake

1. Survey effort - A minimum of 10 survey visits should be made to a study site. Non consecutive survey visits need to be made following the guidance on reptile survey. Trapping out reptiles based on peak counts or density figures. Capture effort should be plotted on graphs to determine the decline in numbers. Only after 5 clear days of suitable weather habitat manipulation can commence. Once a significant number of animals have been rescued then the last phase of the trapping follows a 'destructive' search

2. Habitat assessment & current impacts identified on the site - the assessment should be aimed at conserving the reptile interests of the local area with two main aims as identified by Natural England

2(i) To avoid harm to any resident reptiles

2(ii) To prevent any net loss of local conservation status of any reptiles found within a site 

3. Species specific mitigation - lizards should be treated differently to the snakes. The general requirements of the different species are similar but it needs to be recognised that snakes operate within a wider range of habitat than the lizards. Slow-worms and lizards would exist in small habitat ranges than the snakes. Effectively the scale of habitat use is larger in snakes.

4. Look for alternative sites to develop, then accommodate the reptile interest within a development by a redesign of development scheme, then a relocation to an in situ receptor site and an absolute last resort translocation to external sites.

5. Ideally all the required survey work should be completed over at least a full reptile season. The reptile survey should follow the guidance on reptile survey and it should also look beyond the study site and into the wider countryside to look for suitable receptor sites and sites which can be improved for reptiles as compensation for development. Putting the study site in context with adjoining habitat and reptile populations is important to assess the likely impacts towards conservation of reptiles.

6. Habitat features should be mapped on site using survey information - for e.g. adders found within the early spring would be pretty close to their hibernation area - this should be incorporated withina development design. If the hibernacula will be lost then a replacement should be provided. Ideally more habitat should be created which is lost.

7. Trapping effort - if reptiles need to be moved away from any harmful activities then the closer to the original capture site the better. Reptiles should not be translocated any great distance unless it is absolutely necessary. Large distance translocations over 35km should be avoided.

8. Receptor sites - receptor sites should ideally be larger than the habitat being lost to development. Ideally an existing reptile population should be absent but it has connectivity to other adjoinign reptile populations. Habitat enhancements should be made to a receptor site in advance of moving animals. Using receptor sites year after year should be discouraged. Farmland reverted to rough grassland habitats would be the best option. Habitat management on neglected habitats or unsuitable reptile habitat (such as planted pine forests) can provide suitable areas to move reptiles to.

(i) Receptor site should be larger in area than the habitat being lost (no net conservation loss)

(ii) Receptor sites should be a similar habitat to the donor site

(iii) Secure for the long term through a management agreement planning conditions or section 106

(iv) Within 10km of the donor site and ideally within 2km - only when absolutely necessary further distances can be considered. Distances over 30km should not be considered.

(v) connected to further habitat and near other reptile colonies

(vi)  Enhancements should be prepared in advance of the movement of animals

9. Monitoring - provision of monitoring reptiles should be aimed towards the long term - beyond 10 to 25 years - depending on the size of the project. Funds should made available to an organisation to help fund surveys at least every other year to inform management activities over the winter. Short term monitoring cannot provide the information whether a population is self sustaining and it is suggested that more long term monitoring programmes are required.

10. Follow up management works - it is important to provide money for follow up management guided by monitoring surveys. Funds should be paid to managing organisation - volunteer effort or paid contractors for a set period of 20 to 25 years - dependent on size of project.

Any other comments and suggestions

Jon

Hi Steve

It would be good to develop the LPA guidelines into an advice sheet from ARG UK. There is a planning advice sheet for ARG groups perhaps a similar advice sheet can be developed for LPA's?

At the South East Meeting last year we discussed the need for new guidance on best practice and we need to think about what is acceptable practice (suggested by Lee Brady) rather than determine what consultants should do in projects - we should expect things like no net loss of status, increases in reptile habitat, monitoring of projects and reporting survey results.

Regards

Jon

Hi Steve and Jon

Do you know, or anyone else know, if the updated reptile mitigation guidelines from Natural England, have been produced yet? I believe that Natural England were hoping to get these published in the spring 2010.

I'm an ecological consultant but find it frustrating there is no formal reptile mitigation advice (which is up to date).

I was interested to read your comments though Jon. Certainly regarding reptile surveys, the minimum seems to be 7 although I have often found silow worms on the 3rd visit.

Some informaiton on assessing the impacts of develpoment would be helpful and what the minimum required for mitigation is. Particularly interested in slow worm mitigation advice that this up to date in relation to receptor sites and habitat enhancement.

i believe that it is bad practice to move reptiles from a development site without planning permission. However, in some cases, I have been forced to begin mitigation because planning authorities are somewhat laid back and often cause delays.

Any comments would be welcome. 

Thanks for your comments.

I agree that more than 7 visits are required as well as the density of refugia. In fact I feel that the  more visits you can do, the better - providing the weather conditions are suitable.

Regarding the number of refugia - Froglife recommend using 5-6 per ha but I have found that using a density of 50+ is far better. It depends on the site conditions and available habitats as well as the materials that you have available. I have found that roofing felt and corrugated iron works well for slow worms.

I think more research is required to determine if translocation programmes are successful for reptiles - esp slow worms. I would normally recommend that surveys are undertaken for at least 5 years following the translocation, although obviously this depends on time constraints, weather conditions and funding.

Re the mitigation for slow worms - i have found that strimming areas of grass where slow worms are known to be present and leaving patches of grass uncut makes it easier to catch them. Obviiously this needs to be controlled and done gradually but it works!

Thanks again.

• December - we've not conducted controlled surveys in December, so we have no December data...yet.
• The zig-zag should not be interpreted as a zig-zag. This is because the 'bin-range' on temperatures is set to too fine a resolution (1?C). Initially this was very 'zig-zagged' but as we build up survey data, all the lines smooth out more. I'l will change the temperature bin-range. So far (500? surveys) we haven't had a survey for each 1?C step, or at least not enough to get a good mean. If you see a spike at 15?C, you can assume that 1?C either side won't make much of a difference.
• Yes all negative results are recorded and are a function within the statistics. Recording time spent surveying and negative results are key to determining these stats, and eliminating some of the biases.

Thanks Jon for your comments. I would be, and I know others would be too, of any further training on assessing population status of widespread reptiles.

By the way, I wasn't indicating that consultants should go by the Froglife's advice as it is obvious from reading this that it is intended for volunteer surveys. I was only stating that consultant surveys would naturally need to be detailed, due to the reasons whuconsultants undertake these surveys.

.

• Peak counts
• Detectability over a number of surveys (animals seen per hour)
• Using an agreed carrying capacity and multiplying by area (for suitable habitat areas)
  
• Mark/recapture