skip to Main Content

Phase 1 survey of a brownfield site

phase 1 brownfield site

Derelict buildings sometimes require bat roost assessments

An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was commissioned for a site in south Norfolk. The site consisted of 0.3ha of unused land, including an old dilapidated building and several trees with bordering woodland, farmland and existing development. WFE undertook a site survey to classify the habitats to JNCC standards, and with the methods being ‘extended’ to include a general evaluation of potential habitats for any protected or valued species. The habitats on the site and surrounding area were classified, hedgerows were appraised, buildings and trees were inspected for bats and considerations were made concerning other protected species.

All the information we collected was mapped, supported by target notes and photographs detailing protected species issues. Further protected species issues were ruled out in this case and this fed into a final report for planning. If further surveys had been necessary, WFE could have produced what is known as a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and a final report produced after necessary surveys had been completed.

Preliminary appraisal used to inform project design

In March 2019 a small proposed housing development in Suffolk required a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (or PEA) to understand ecological risks prior to our client making key planning and design decisions.  We would always advise doing this: issues flagged early can avoid significant delays and costs associated with seasonal survey constraints and re-design. Unfortunately an all too common occurrence when this advice is not followed.

In this case we were able to inform the client of the presence of great crested newts and reptiles in the surrounding area, both of which were flagged by a habitat survey and the data search we conducted. The data search also identified a sensitive grassland close by which was a County Wildlife Site.

ecological appraisal informs project design

A great crested newt found on site

The report we produced provided clear advice on the next steps, timings for necessary surveys, likely mitigation requirements and possible future licencing requirements. This information was fed into the design and planning stages.

Incidentally, the required great crested newt eDNA surveys were mobilised in April and we were able to complete our final report for planning by late May 2017 with no delay to the project timetable. If the client had come to us at the end of their design process, due to the seasonality of the surveys needed, the project would have been delayed until early-2020.

A new water pipeline at Thetford

  • January 27, 2020
  • Blog

In 2018 Wild Frontier Ecology undertook an extended Phase 1 habitat survey along a proposed water pipeline route around Thetford in Norfolk. The route was proposed to go through an industrial estate, agricultural fields, pastures, grasslands, hedges and trees.

To assess the habitats along the route, and the potential for any impacts on protected species, Wild Frontier Ecology first carried out a desk survey. This comprised a search for conservation sites within 2km of the proposed route and a data search with the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service for species records. Fourteen statutorily designated nature conservation sites and 16 County Wildlife Sites were found with three of the County Wildlife Sites directly intersecting the route. 6,450 species records, including reptiles and a variety of bird species were also found within the 2km buffer.

Next the route was subject to a walkover survey where all habitats within a 100-250m buffer of the proposed pipeline were mapped and considered for their potential to host protected species such as great crested newts, reptiles and stone curlews. Ponds were also recorded and assessed for their suitability for great crested newts.

phase 1 water pipeline

An excerpt of a Phase 1 Habitat Map for the pipeline route

Based on the findings of the habitat survey, the client was advised that further great crested newt, reptile and stone curlew surveys should be undertaken to ensure impacts on these species were fully considered. No great crested newts were found in any of the surveyed ponds, a population of grass snakes was recorded at one County Wildlife Site and a stone curlew nest recorded just to the north of the route.

phase 1 water pipeline

Adam contemplates an early bath

Subsequent advice on how to avoid the recorded ecological features allowed the client to opt for directionally drilling under the County Wildlife Sites.

Wild Frontier’s final report then summarised the anticipated ecological impacts for the purposes of planning. Tailored construction methods and seasonal restrictions to the work were advised based on the survey findings. Altogether the package of survey works and clear practical advice meant that the project was assessed to have a neutral ecological impact in the long term, fulfilling the client’s ecological obligations.

Water voles on a County Wildlife Site

WFE have had a long involvement with a site in South Norfolk where fishery ponds had been excavated on a County Wildlife Site. As part of the remedial works for restoring fen habitat in the area, a large pond supporting water voles was to be filled in.  

water vole surveys

Water voles were trapped and relocated away from the construction area

WFE consulted an associate who was experienced in water vole mitigation, and we worked in partnership to provide water vole surveys and a mitigation licence for this work. This required habitat management (scrub removal) across the rest of the site to provide new water vole habitat. Once the licence was obtained the pond was fenced and water voles were caught using suitable trapping equipment. Trapped animals were moved to soft release pens elsewhere on the site. Following a period in which no water voles were caught, a destructive search was undertaken, and one further water vole was removed. Pond infill then took place, with no further water vole casualties. 

We have monitored the site post infill, and noted continuity of water vole presence across the site. The infill area is showing signs of returning to good quality fen habitat, with water levels at or around ground level throughout. Managed areas of habitat are being used by water voles.

Heathland habitat assessment for stone curlew

stone curlew habitat survey

Stone Curlews

Wild Frontier was commissioned by the RSPB and Natural England to conduct a survey and assessment of heathland habitat for stone curlews in the Norfolk and Suffolk Breckland. Stone curlews are a rare summer visitor in East Anglia, and are afforded special protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. 

The survey involved visiting each site and categorising the habitat based on vegetation height – an important factor in determining suitability for stone curlew nesting. WFE then mapped the habitats on site and calculated which areas were suitable for stone curlew. 

The assessment provided an indication of site condition and potential population capacity for stone curlew, which can now inform conservation efforts and habitat management for the species. 

What is Phase 1?

  • February 16, 2011
  • Blog

The Phase 1 habitat survey. To those in the industry this is a well known term; to those outside our little world this can be another piece of mysterious jargon. So here is my guide to a ‘Phase 1 habitat survey’.

A Phase 1 habitat survey is designed to map an area under consideration based on the habitats present. As ecological consultants we use it as tool to inform on the need for further survey; as a baseline to record an area’s current state; or to help in the impact assessment of a development.

In a Phase 1 habitat survey, habitats are assigned a type in accordance with guidance set down by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC); primarily this refers to the landscape structure and vegetation present. With standardised habitat definitions and map colour schemes, areas can be compared at a national level. As well as large habitat areas, boundary features are also assessed and classified. Hedges and ditches can also be important habitats. The output from a Phase 1 habitat survey is often a colourful map, with additional “target notes” to provide further information on any points of interest and habitats too small to map.

Whilst a Phase 1 habitat survey is exceedingly useful, an extended Phase 1 habitat survey is often preferred. This provides further information on a site, above that specified by JNCC, and allows the survey results to be of use in the context required, for example the assessment of a proposed development. An extended survey might include more detailed information on hedgerows, a botanical species list, and a further appraisal of the areas as habitat for legally protected species. As the major component of any Phase 1 habitat survey is the time taken walking the site the extended survey information can generally be obtained with minimal additional effort on the part of a competent surveyor.

A Phase 1 habitat survey is generally the first survey undertaken at a site and is often akin to a site assessment. By determining what habitats are present on a site the ecologist can say what, if any, protected species might be supported there. They can then assess the need for any further targeted surveys. Common protected species surveys in lowland habitats are for badgers, bats, breeding birds, great crested newts, otter, reptiles and water vole. However, it is exceptional that all these surveys would be required on a small site. Although protected species surveys are generally the second phase of ecological assessment of a site, in the jargon a Phase 2 survey specifically would refer to further botanical work on a site. This is generally in the form of a more detailed vegetation survey called ‘National Vegetation Classification’ (NVC). For the majority of lowland development work this level of vegetation survey is not necessary.

Ideally a Phase 1 habitat survey would be the first survey undertaken, this is inevitably not always the case. A Phase 1 habitat survey is best conducted between April and October when deciduous and annual plant species are identifiable. Dependent on a site we can often undertake an initial assessment to get a project underway. For many small development sites a Phase 1 habitat survey may not be appropriate as it takes a landscape approach. However, the same skills can be applied to assess the habitat quality of a site on a small scale.

As an ecologist the Phase 1 habitat survey is one of my favourites. By its very nature the most interesting habitats on a site must be inspected, and as these surveys often take us off roads and footpaths it provides the opportunity to be inquisitive and see the flora and fauna in areas that would normally be off limits. This off-piste kind of activity does also come with its disadvantages. As the newest addition to a field the local livestock normally find you fascinating. Then of course there may not be the handy gates and styles a footpath has to offer. Deep ditches, dense hedges and barbed-wire fences all provide their own challenges and impenetrable barriers normally show up just when it’s least convenient. Finally with thousands of plant species in the UK aspects of this survey are by no means easy. Plants may stay still, but they can hugely variable in size and form depending on the surrounding conditions. Still give me an interesting site any day, I like a challenge.

A Phase 1 habitat survey can often be a considerable walk in the countryside, so let’s face it as long as it’s not pouring with rain that is always better than a day in the office!

Susie

Susannah Dickinson

Susannah Dickinson

Susie has always liked plants (although maybe not grasses). She cut her teeth as a Phase 1 habitat surveyor working on surveys for a 45km cable route across Norfolk, and spent the last year attempting to do as many of WFE’s extended Phase 1 habitat surveys as possible. The highlight was a floriferous green lane in Northamptonshire. Susie has a rapidly expanding knowledge of arable weeds, and aspires to have as good a botanical knowledge as Rob!

For more information see:

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit.

Waxwings

  • December 1, 2010
  • Blog

These chubby yet gaudy wanderers from Scandinavia are being seen in their hundreds this winter, with big arrivals along the east coast in the autumn from mid October onwards. They have long been a birders’ favourite, often allowing close approach and appearing in otherwise bird-barren urban areas such as supermarket car parks.

I had the excitement of seeing a flock of 18 flying in over the shingle bank at Cley marshes NWT in early November, as well as singles over our office, 3 on survey in Perthshire and 1 over Norwich Cathedral yesterday. Those tuned in to their call will find that it’s not unusual to encounter the odd roaming singleton flying over in these irruption years.

Waxwing spotted by Rob. Photo Jonny Rankin

Waxwing spotted by Rob. Photo Jonny Rankin

Waxwings are an irruptive species, arriving in the UK in varying numbers each winter. The key driver to their movements would seem to be the supply of wild berries in Scandinavia. The 1965 irruption, according to Birds of the Western Palearctic, was a result of an “acute imbalance between population size and food supply in Fenno-Scandia”. An awesome set of photos from Fair Isle  shows that birds crossing the North Sea were hungry enough to feed from the hand. Judging by the plethora of photos of waxwings appearing this autumn, once birds reach Britain, their favourite nosh would seem to be rowan berries, including ornamental varieties.

An interesting article in BirdGuides shows the movement through the country of a colour-ringed waxwing, from Orkney to Aberdeen in six days, and from Aberdeen to Cumbria in another seven. Previous patterns of invasion have shown that larger flocks tend to aggregate in city centres later in the winter, presumably because of the variety of food sources available.

And here’s the tenuous link; here is a piece of evidence that all the BREEAM assessments we undertake which recommend berry planting, and all the urban landscaping schemes which include berry-bearing shrubs and trees, do at least benefit this one species of bird in its hour of need. That is not to say that they do not benefit other birds in the same way. What sometimes seem like token efforts on small sites can cumulatively be of critical importance.

Rob

Robert Yaxley

Rob Yaxley started birdwatching at the age of 3 and saw his first waxwing in a garden in Costessey in 1985. Best memories including seeing a single waxwing in the trees at Guist Bridge in 1987, and hearing a flock go over while coppicing in Wayland Wood with the golden pheasants sometime in the early 1990s. Rob enjoys eating berries and hanging around in supermarket car parks.

A Bat Survey in Norfolk

  • September 22, 2010
  • Blog

Love ‘em or hate ‘em – bats are one of those marmite species groups that either cause shudders of pain or coos of delight. I fall firmly into the latter camp, and doing bat surveys in Norfolk is very often, I think, one of the most intimate of wildlife experiences.

While some of my more experienced colleagues are licensed experts, being qualified to handle bats amongst other things, my own experiences are limited to arm’s length surveying techniques, such as using bat detectors. As we routinely record all bat sounds using these devices, surveys can be undertaken by ecologists with a relatively low skill base. Some bats are not heard on survey, but only discovered lurking on the sound recording on analysis the day after. The bat species recorded on our Norfolk surveys are often quite predictable.

The commonest species are almost always the two pipistrelles, common and soprano. These bats forage widely in the East Anglian countryside, and are often encountered hawking for insects along hedgerows remote from any potential roosting site. Their distinctive echolocation signals also make them easy to identify, with common pip registering at 45KHz and soprano registering at 55KHz, and they will frequently fly very close to observers, perhaps mistaking you in the dark for a small tree or insect-attracting farm animal.

Larger bats are generally scarcer in Norfolk, but because they are wide ranging do often get recorded on surveys as a single fly-through. Noctule, serotine and Leisler’s bats fall into this category. Being larger, they also echolocate at a lower frequency, though if close the calls can be almost deafening through the bat detector. Brown long-eared bat, though a relatively common species, rarely gets picked up on bat survey transects due to its short echolocation range. The other group of frequently encountered bat species in Norfolk are the Myotis bats – especially Daubenton’s and Natterer’s. These species have distinct habitat preferences, with Daubenton’s preferring to forage over water, and Natterer’s preferring woodland. Daubenton’s fly in a distinctive manner, skimming low over the water with an immobile body, and fast fluttering wings. Their echolocation is broadband, and has often been likened to a marble bouncing on a mirror.

The last group of bats is the rares, the ones that make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Barbastelle is the ascendant among these, thinly distributed in East Anglian woodlands, but there are also other species such as Brandt’s and whiskered bats and Nathusius’s pipistrelle about which very little is known in Norfolk. There are no doubt concentrations of these species in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire awaiting discovery.

Rob

Robert Yaxley

Robert Yaxley

 

Bird Surveys in Norfolk

  • September 3, 2010
  • Blog

Doing bird surveys in Norfolk, Suffolk and the rest of East Anglia has stacked up to be a significant part of my working life for nearly 20 years. From my teenage years, undertaking BTO Atlas surveys on my bike in Central Norfolk, through years of RSPB research, to consultant surveys and wind farm vantage point watches on sites proposed for development, it has provided a constant touchstone through the years.

In work terms, the dewy early morning at the start of a Common Birds Census survey always provides a frisson of excitement, especially for some sites in East Anglia, where even the most average-looking piece of farmland could turn up the odd quail, marsh harrier or stone curlew. Indeed, over the years, surveys have turned up the odd genuine rarity such as crane, red-backed shrike, Savi’s warbler, purple heron, and lesser grey shrike (not all original finds, for the bird historians out there).

Bird surveys can provide genuine ecological surprises too – birds nesting out of their known range, surprising densities, or (more commonly) surprising absences. They also give a snapshot of what is really going on with the general bird zeitgeist – for examples, ever increasing numbers of buzzards, little egrets and peregrines in the East of England, and ever dwindling numbers of willow warblers, cuckoos and grey partridges in the wider countryside.

It has also provided me with intimate knowledge of a few species – the difficulties faced by pairs of yellowhammers in a modern farming environment where the machine is king, and the bizarre behaviour of the huge flocks of golden plovers that overwinter in East Anglia, particularly on the huge prairie fields of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. My colleague Graham spent many years getting to know all of Norfolk and Suffolk Breckland’s stone curlews on first name terms, and sure knows a thing or two about their weird ways.

Wild Frontier has evolved a pragmatic but thorough approach to ornithological and bird assessments partly through the experience our bird team has accrued, particularly in lowland situations, but also through our understanding of the impacts of development on birds. Our pool of expert surveyors, some of them big league birders, is not just a tool for getting the best quality surveys, it is also an unbeatable resource of shared practical experience and knowledge.

Rob

Robert Yaxley

Conserving the White-clawed Crayfish: Is it too late?

  • August 3, 2010
  • Blog
Rare Blue White-clawed Crayfish

Rare Blue White-clawed Crayfish

The white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes, is the only native crayfish species in the UK and unfortunately it is very much under threat from invasive species, disease and changes to water quality. Is it too late for them?

The answer is NO.

Although a slightly different approach to the conservation of white-clawed crayfish must be taken than to other species. The normal approach to conserving a species is through connectivity of populations but with white-clawed crayfish a new approach of creating ark sites or unconnected populations look to be the most likely way prevent the extinction of the species. As with all conservation projects education has a key role so the people understand the plight of the species.

White-clawed crayfish are under threat in the UK due to a mixed of ignorance, poor policy and malicious intent. These factors have caused the introduction and spread of signal crayfish along with other potential more invasive species of crayfish, such as red swamp or virile crayfish.

Signal crayfish were introduced to the UK in the 1970 in aquaculture trials although they were known from their introduction in Sweden to be highly invasive and to carry crayfish plague. The trade in crayfish in the UK never really took off, but the animals remained. If left to their own devices the spread of signal crayfish across the UK would take centuries as they move relatively slowly through the river system. This, however, is not the case as the animals are still being illegally introduced to new areas. This is known to have happen through naivety but also through malicious intent. To release or allow the escape into the wild of these or any non-native species of crayfish is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. An excellent five day course I recently attended highlighted these issues as well as giving me an excellent grounding in crayfish surveys.

In recent years the spread of signal crayfish has been worsened by celebrity chefs promoting signal crayfish as a food source. Personally I would not eat signal crayfish primarily for the reason that they are a lot of faffing around for very little in return, as you can only eat the tail and the claws on some larger males; – also if you catch ones are too small to eat you can’t throw them back but have to kill them too. You also need a licence to fish for the animals. Another reason is if your crayfish trap is not set up correctly you may trap water voles and otters. Then I would seriously consider whether they are safe to eat. Although our rivers are cleaner than they once were very little work has been done on the bioaccumulation of heavy metals in signal crayfish but in Europe other species studies have shown that the noble crayfish does accumulate a considerable amount of heavy metals in organs and tissues.

Signal crayfish also carry crayfish plague, which is… which has decimated the white-clawed crayfish as they are believed to be 100% susceptible to it and when it reaches a white-clawed crayfish population it will kill all the crayfish in that stretch of the river.

Alarming recent work on signal crayfish is starting to show that the presence of signal crayfish is not only impacting on white-clawed crayfish, or having an economic effect on restoring waterways with signal crayfish but also that they pose a threat to game fisheries. It is being found that the spawning success of salmonids is reduced in headwaters where signal crayfish have been introduced .

It is not all doom and gloom – we can do something! Help to get the sale of crayfish banned in the UK, this is a start. If you are an angler ensure your equipment such as nets and boots are clean, dried in the sun and even disinfected to prevent the accidental spread of crayfish or crayfish plague. If we don’t actively spread crayfish plague or the non-native species this should allow us the time needed to find a solution to the problems they cause and prevent the extinction of a species.

John

Back To Top