· web viewsurvival of the latter by restricting access to resources. consequently, a reduction in...

Welsh Assembly Government

Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation (BRO) in the ‘Intensive Action

Pilot Area’ (IAPA), South-west Wales

Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

December 2009

Report no: C1314/V6/Doc.1

This report has been prepared for the Welsh Assembly Government in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Welsh Assembly Government dated March 2008.

Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA



December 2009

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Legislation and Policy Context................................................................................ 3

2.1 Nature Conservation Legislation .................................................................................. 3

2.1.1 The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).........................................................................3

2.1.2 The Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations (1994)........................................3

2.1.3 The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) .................................................................3

2.1.4 Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act (2000)................................................4

2.1.5 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) ..........................4

2.2 Biodiversity Action Plans .............................................................................................. 4

2.2.1 United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan.................................................................4

2.2.2 Local Biodiversity Action Plans ................................................................................5

3 Impact Assessment Methodology ........................................................................... 6

3.1 Background to the Assessment.................................................................................... 6

3.2 Valuation ...................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Impact Characterisation ............................................................................................... 7

3.4 Assessing Significance................................................................................................. 8

3.5 Residual Effects ........................................................................................................... 8

4 Scoping & Valuation ................................................................................................. 9

4.1 Review of Ecological Resources .................................................................................. 9

4.2 Activities and Impacts of the BRO................................................................................ 9

4.2.1 Activities ...................................................................................................................9

4.2.2 Ecological Changes and Resulting Impacts.............................................................9

4.2.3 Future Baseline and Cumulative Impacts ..............................................................10

4.3 Setting the Zone of Influence ..................................................................................... 11

4.4 Selection of Potential Key Ecological Receptors........................................................ 12

5 Possible Ecological Changes as a Result of Removing Badgers from the IAPA13

5.1 Potential Consequences of Badger Removal............................................................. 13

5.2 Revised Assessment of Ecological Receptors ........................................................... 17

5.2.1 Designated sites.....................................................................................................18

5.2.2 Birds .......................................................................................................................19

5.2.3 Mammals................................................................................................................20

5.3 Summary of Ecological Receptors ............................................................................. 22

6 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................ 25

6.1 Methodology............................................................................................................... 25

6.1.1 Desk Study.............................................................................................................25

6.1.2 Consultations .........................................................................................................26

6.2 Key Ecological Receptors .......................................................................................... 26

6.2.1 Determining current and future baseline conditions...............................................27

6.2.2 Baseline conditions for the Key Ecological Receptors...........................................28

Page ii




December 2009

7 Impact Assessment and Options for Mitigation................................................... 33

7.1 Generic Impact Parameters ....................................................................................... 33

7.2 Key Ecological Receptors .......................................................................................... 34

7.2.1 Designated sites.....................................................................................................34

7.2.2 Species ..................................................................................................................35

7.3 Other Ecological Receptors........................................................................................ 40

7.4 Summary of impacts on Ecological Receptors........................................................... 42

8 Recommendations for Monitoring......................................................................... 44

8.1 Rationale .................................................................................................................... 44

8.2 Monitoring proposals .................................................................................................. 44

9 Conclusions and Consequences for Decision-Making........................................ 48

10 References............................................................................................................... 50

Figures ................................................................................................................................ 55

Appendices......................................................................................................................... 57

Page iii




December 2009

1 Introduction

In early 2009 the Welsh Assembly Government commissioned a project to

assess the potential ecological consequences of a badger removal

operation (BRO) in areas of Pembrokeshire, Cardigan and

Carmarthenshire (identified as the Intensive Action Pilot Area (IAPA)). This

document presents an assessment of the likely impacts of the BRO on

biodiversity, in order to aid the Minister to discharge her obligations under

s.40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

The document should be read in conjunction with the Habitats Directive

Screening Report, which addresses the specific impacts of the BRO on

European designated sites (or Natura 2000 sites).

In compiling this report, current knowledge concerning the ecological

consequences of culling badgers has been reviewed, and applied where

possible to the IAPA. The report focuses on sites and species protected

and/or identified as important on a European, UK, national, regional or local

level. Likely impacts on these sites and species are assessed and options

to mitigate or compensate for potentially significant effects are discussed.

In addition, the report includes recommendations for monitoring the status

of species or sites upon which the likelihood of measurable impacts are

equivocal.

The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the guidance set

out in the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2006) (‘the IEEM

Guidelines’), in order to provide the Welsh Assembly Government, with

“clear and concise information about the likely significant ecological effects

associated with the project” (IEEM, 2006)

The baseline conditions against which the likely significant effects are to be

assessed are the environmental conditions in the absence of the badger

removal operation (BRO), within and surrounding the proposed IAPA over

the lifetime of the project.

This report has been prepared by a specialist ecological consultancy.

Section 2 of the report presents the legislation and policy context that

underpins the impact assessment, and within which the BRO will be carried

out.

Section 3 summarises the assessment methodology that has been used,

and Section 4 describes the scoping and valuation process.

The possible ecological changes that could arise as a result of badger

removal are discussed in Section 5, along with a summary of the ecological

receptors that are taken forward for detailed assessment.

Section 6 presents the baseline conditions for each of these receptors, and

the detailed characterisation of impacts upon them is reported in Section 7,

along with proposals for mitigation.

Page 1




December 2009

Section 8 presents recommendations for a comprehensive monitoring

scheme.

The conclusions of the assessment are summarised in Section 9.

Table 1 in Appendix 1 lists the designated sites in and around the IAPA.

Appendix 2 lists the species for which desk study information was obtained.

The maximum extent of the IAPA and the desk study data are presented in

map form on Figures 1-3.

Page 2




December 2009

2 Legislation and Policy Context

2.1 Nature Conservation Legislation

2.1.1 The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

The Habitats Directive exists to promote the maintenance of biodiversity

across Europe. The Directive provides for the creation of a network of

protected areas across the continent, and lists the habitats and species of

importance in a Europe-wide context.

2.1.2 The Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations (1994)

The Habitats Directive is implemented in the UK through the Habitats

Regulations. The Regulations provide for the designation of both Special

Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas for Conservation (SACs), as

part of the European Natura 2000 network.

A separate document has been prepared which reports the implications of

the BRO for Natura 2000 sites (see the HDA Screening Report).

2.1.3 The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), is the principal

mechanism for the legislative protection of wildlife in Britain. The Act

provides for the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs),

which are selected as the best national examples of habitat types, sites

with notable species and sites of geological importance.

The 17 Schedules of the Act cover the protection of wildlife, including birds,

some other animals and plants. Schedules relevant to the ecology of the

IAPA and surrounding area are listed in the table below.

Table 2.1: Identification of Ecological Receptors.

Schedule Subject

1-4 Wild birds

5 Certain species of animal (protection described in

Section 9 of the Act)

8 Plants and fungi

9 Plants and animals to which section 14 applies

Water voles (Arvicola terrestris) have recently been afforded ‘full’ protection

under this Act. Several species of birds, other animals, and plants covered

by the Wildlife and Countryside Act have been recorded within the IAPA

and surrounding area and are discussed in more detail in Section 6.

Page 3




December 2009

2.1.4 Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act (2000)

The CRoW Act 2000 confers greater protection to SSSIs and introduces

the offence of ‘reckless disturbance’ to species listed in some Schedules of

the Wildlife and Countryside Act (see above). The Act also requires

Government Departments to have regard to biodiversity and conservation;

habitats and species of principal importance are listed under Section 74 of

the Act, for which conservation steps should be taken or promoted.

2.1.5 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act

(2006)

The NERC Act places a duty upon public bodies to consider enhancement

of biodiversity within all of their actions. Species of principal importance for

the conservation of biological diversity in Wales are listed under Section 42

of the NERC act. In addition, this Act provides for those species identified

within the UKBAP and the relevant LBAPs to be considered as biodiversity

conservation priorities (see below).

2.2 Biodiversity Action Plans

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are strategies to conserve, protect and

enhance habitats and species. The United Kingdom Biodiversity Action

Plan (UKBAP) sets out a national strategy for the conservation of

biodiversity in Britain (see section 2.2.1 below). Regional BAPs and Local

BAPs (LBAPs) have also been produced to address biodiversity issues

specific to particular areas in the UK (see section 2.2.2 below).

2.2.1 United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan

The UKBAP is the UK Government's response to the Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD) signed in 1992. It describes the UK's biological

resources and sets out a detailed plan for their protection (JNCC, 2007).

Habitat types and species are listed within the UKBAP with specific targets

for their conservation. The UKBAP now includes 1149 priority species and

65 priority habitats. Species Action Plans (SAPs) and Habitat Action Plans

(HAPs) have been produced for a number of these species. The Action

Plans and Targets from the UKBAP which are relevant to the IAPA include:

hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus); water vole; otter (Lutra lutra); brown

hare (Lepus europaeus); polecat (Mustela putorius); pine marten (Martes

martes); red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris); dormouse (Muscardinus

avellanarius); harvest mouse (Micromys minutus) lapwing (Vanellus

vanellus); skylark (Alauda arvensis); tree pipit (Anthus trivialis); nightjar

(Caprimulgus europaeus); cuckoo (Cuculus canorus); chough (Pyrrhocorax

pyrrhocorax); curlew (Numenius arquata); reed bunting (Emberiza

schoeniclus); woodlark (Lullula arborea); wood warbler (Phylloscopus

sibilatrix); grey partridge (Perdix perdix); grasshopper warbler (Locustella

naevia) and song thrush (Turdus philomelos).

Page 4




December 2009

2.2.2 Local Biodiversity Action Plans

The local Biodiversity Action Plans relevant to the IAPA are the LBAPs for

Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion.

Pembrokeshire Biodiversity Action Plan

The Biodiversity Action Plan for Pembrokeshire covers 41 habitats,

including HAPs for lowland meadow, lowland heathland, cereal field

margins, improved grassland and dry acid grassland. The Pembrokeshire

LBAP also covers 110 species (including vertebrates, invertebrates and

plants), with SAPs for choughs, farmland birds (particularly lapwing, skylark

and song thrush), and a number of other species including bats, dormouse,

water vole, brown hare, otter and butterflies.

Carmarthenshire Biodiversity Action Plan

The Biodiversity Action Plan for Carmarthenshire covers eight habitat

groups, including HAPs for lowland grassland and heathland, upland

habitats, woodland, farmland, brownfield/urban sites, wetlands, freshwater,

coastal and marine habitats. The Carmarthenshire LBAP identifies target

species within habitat plans wherever possible. However, there are

individual action plans for marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia), brown

hairstreak (Thecla betulae), Deptford pink (Dianthus armeria), smallflowered

catchfly (Silene gallica), lapwing, tree sparrow (Passer montanus),

barn owl (Tyto alba), nightjar, bats, dormouse, red squirrel, hedgehog,

water vole and otter.

Ceredigion Biodiversity Action Plan

The Biodiversity Action Plan for Ceredigion contains four UK BAP habitats,

comprising upland mixed ash woodland, upland oak woodland, wet

woodland and roadside verges. The Ceredigion LBAP has SAPs for black

grouse (Tetrao tetrix), brown hare, chough and hornet robberfly (Asilus

crabroniformis).

Page 5




December 2009

3 Impact Assessment Methodology

3.1 Background to the Assessment

In accordance with the IEEM Guidelines, a comprehensive assessment has

been carried out which attempts to collate all of the existing baseline

information and predict all of the significant effects of the BRO on Key

Ecological Receptors.

In addition, measures have been developed to address the legislative and

policy requirements associated with those protected species for which

significant effects are not expected, but which nevertheless warrant

consideration.

3.2 Valuation

One of the aims of this report is to describe the likely impacts of the BRO

on the full range of ecological resources, in general terms, in and around

the IAPA. However, in accordance with the relevant current guidance on

Environmental Impact Assessment, it is considered inappropriate to attempt

to investigate in detail all potential ecological issues in relation to the BRO.

Instead, the intention is to focus the detailed assessment on those activities

that could potentially generate significant ecological effects on ‘Key

Ecological Receptors’.

In order to determine the likelihood of a significant ecological effect, it is first

necessary to identify whether a receptor is sufficiently valuable for a

significant effect upon it to be material in decision making. To achieve this,

where possible, animal species and their populations have been valued on

the basis of a combination of their rarity, status and distribution, using

contextual information where it exists.

A desk-based review was carried out to broadly identify the ecological

resources in the local area. This, in combination with a review of the likely

implications of badger removal, was used to identify the zones of influence

of the BRO (i.e. the areas over which the badger control operation could

have an effect). Once these were established, a more detailed desk study

was carried out in order to determine the value of the ecological resources

that could be affected.

The following geographic frame of reference has been used to determine

the value of ecological receptors within the BRO: ‘International’; UK

’National’; ’Regional’; ‘County’; ‘District/Borough’; and ‘Parish/

Neighbourhood’.

Given the scale of the IAPA, for the purposes of this assessment it is

proposed that only those species classified at ‘County’ level and above are

considered to be sufficiently valuable for a significant effect upon them to

be material in decision making. Only ecological receptors equivalent to or

greater than ‘County’ value have therefore been included within the detailed

assessment as ecological receptors of ‘key’ nature conservation

importance (Key Ecological Receptors).

Page 6




December 2009

Although certain species and habitats may not constitute Key Ecological

Receptors based upon their nature conservation value, and therefore would

not form part of the detailed assessment, they may still warrant

consideration during the design and mitigation of the BRO on the basis of

their legal protection or their implications for environmental (and related)

policies and plans. Therefore, consideration has separately been given to

these ‘Other Ecological Receptors’.

The results of the ecological valuation process are presented in Section 4

(Scoping and Valuation); this summarises the results of the desk study and

presents which of the resources have been identified as ‘Key Ecological

Receptors’, which are considered as ‘Other Ecological Receptors’, and

which have been ‘scoped-out’ of the assessment altogether. It is important

to highlight that the selection of Key Ecological Receptors has been

informed by an assessment not only of their nature conservation value but

also of the likely impacts upon them. Thus, a species of particular nature

conservation importance will not be included as a key receptor if the

impacts upon that receptor will not be significant. In the context of this

assessment, a Key Ecological Receptor is defined as a population of a

species, an assemblage or a site that is (a) of County importance or

greater, and (b) might be affected significantly as a consequence of the

BRO.

3.3 Impact Characterisation

Once the ecological resources within this part of Wales have been

identified and valued (in order to determine which could possibly be

material in the decision-making process), it is then necessary to investigate

potential impacts on those receptors in order to understand how they might

be affected by the BRO.

An initial impact assessment was therefore undertaken on the basis of the

initial valuation of ecological receptors (following the initial broad review of

desk study information) in order to determine whether or not any significant

impacts were likely. This assessment was based on an understanding of

the likely activities associated with the IAPA, the ecological changes that

could be predicted as a result of these activities, and the area over which

such effects might be experienced by different receptors (i.e. the zones of

influence).

Only those ecological resources that it was considered could experience

significant effects from the BRO (i.e. impacts that could adversely affect the

favourable conservation status of a species’ local population), and were

identified as being of sufficient value to be material to decision-making (i.e.

of ‘County’ level of importance or above) were classified as potential Key

Ecological Receptors.

The IEEM guidelines suggest a number of factors that should be considered

in an impact assessment. These are: whether an impact is likely to be

positive or negative, the magnitude/extent of an impact, the duration of an

impact, whether an impact is permanent or reversible, and the timing and

frequency of any impact.

Page 7




December 2009

For each effect, the likelihood that it will occur as predicted will be

described on a four-point scale, as set out in the IEEM Guidelines:

Certain/nearcertain:

probability estimated at 95% chance or higher

Probably: probability estimated above 50%, but below 95%;

Unlikely: probability estimated above 5%, but below 50%;

Extremely unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.

In practice, some of the impact pathways were so unclear and/or the

evidence base upon which to base predictions so lacking that there was no

basis upon which to make a judgement; in these cases impacts were

classified as ‘uncertain’.

3.4 Assessing Significance

The significance of an impact is determined on the basis of an analysis of

the factors that characterise the effect, irrespective of the value of the

receptor.

IEEM define the significance of an impact as follows:

“an ecologically significant impact is one which is defined as an impact

(negative or positive) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or

the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical

area.” (IEEM, 2006)

Once a potential significant impact has been identified (i.e. the direct or

indirect effects of the BRO were considered likely to affect the

integrity/favourable conservation status of a potential Key Ecological

Receptor), the value of the receptor has then been used to help determine

the geographical scale at which the impact is significant.

3.5 Residual Effects

Residual effects describe any significant impacts that remain after

mitigation measures (if appropriate) have been identified. These residual

effects have again been interpreted in the context of the geographic scale

at which the receptor they affect has been valued (as described above).

Page 8




December 2009

4 Scoping & Valuation

The process of scoping, as described by IEEM (2006), is an iterative one.

The findings of the initial desk study and review of relevant literature have

refined the scope of the assessment.

4.1 Review of Ecological Resources

The first stage of the scoping/assessment process comprised a broad desk

study review of the ecological resources in the general vicinity of the BRO,

focusing on designated sites and records of protected species or other

species of conservation concern that may be affected by the removal of

badgers from the local ecosystem.

4.2 Activities and Impacts of the BRO

4.2.1 Activities

The maximum extent of the IAPA is indicated on Figure 1.

In addition to the area over which the BRO will take place, any potential

effects and their significance will largely be dictated by the duration of the

culling operation. Changes in populations in response to badger removal

can be expected to become more pronounced the longer the local badger

population is maintained at artificially low levels within the IAPA. For the

purposes of this assessment it has been assumed that culling will take

place over a five year period, similar to that of the Randomised Badger

Culling Trial (RBCT) conducted by the Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

The method of badger removal will be in accordance with The Tuberculosis

Eradication (Wales) Order 2009 under the Animal Health Act 1981. It will

thus involve either capturing badgers at the setts using cage traps and then

humanely dispatching the animals using appropriate firearms or lethal

injection, or shooting without trapping. The details of sett selection, trap

placement, avoidance of disturbance, trap checking, and methods of

dispatch are provided in the Welsh Assembly Government Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs). These documents have been prepared

specifically to ensure that the protocols adopted are as sensitive as

possible and are consistently implemented across the whole IAPA.

4.2.2 Ecological Changes and Resulting Impacts

Ecosystems contain assemblages of different species, in differing

proportions and occupying a variety of niches. In this regard, a predator

such as the badger may influence the abundance and behaviour of the

species that it preys upon, and the availability of prey may influence

predator numbers. In addition, there may be competition between

predators that prey on similar species, and there are many examples of

how carnivores with a larger body size can limit the abundance, breeding

performance and survival of smaller competing predators (Donadio and

Page 9




December 2009

Buskirk, 2006). However, the impact of predation on prey populations

varies widely, and in some cases predators may have little or no effect on

prey populations.

Clearly, relationships within an ecological community can be complex, and

ecologists describe these networks of interactions as food webs. The interdependent

characteristics of food webs mean that changes in one

component (a species or an interaction) may have implications for many

other components of the system. These may be simple, such as an

increase in prey numbers in response to reduced predation when a

predator is removed. However, in many instances the consequences of

changes in one component of the system may be less obvious, such as

when a trophic cascade1 occurs, or when the removal of one predator

reduces the competitive pressure on another (meso-predator release)

which may subsequently increase in numbers and so exert more pressure

on prey populations.

The removal of predators such as badgers from ecosystems has been

observed to cause trophic cascades, meso-predator release and declines

in some species (reviewed in Trewby, 2009). Consequently, it is widely

acknowledged that predators such as badgers can play an important role in

maintaining structure and stability in ecological communities.

In the context of this assessment, therefore, the potential effects (in broad

terms) that could occur as a result of badger removal include alterations in

the abundance and local distribution of badger prey species (and other

species they might possibly affect directly, e.g. commensal species2);

alterations in the abundance and local distribution of badger competitors;

consequential alterations in the abundance and local distribution of prey

and competitors of these species; possible effects on vegetation structure

and plant community composition as a result of these various changes; and

consequential impacts on other species and groups as a result of these

habitat changes. This is dealt with in more detail in Section 5. In addition, it

is conceivable that the trapping activities associated with the BRO could

have direct impacts on individuals of non-target species.

4.2.3 Future Baseline and Cumulative Impacts

An essential part of the impact assessment process involves the

establishment of the baseline conditions for the assessment. The existing

situation has been determined by reviewing the relevant scientific literature

and the ecological information collected during the desk study (presented in

1 A trophic cascade refers to the indirect impact of predators on the food of their prey. For

example, where a predator limits prey populations, it indirectly reduces their impact on the

animals or plants on which they feed.

2 Species which derive a benefit from a relationship with another species, where the host

species is unaffected.

Page 10




December 2009

Section 6). However, it is anticipated that the BRO will continue for

approximately 5 years, and studies of re-colonisation rates (Tuyttens et al.,

2000; Cheeseman et al., 1993) suggest that badger numbers would be

likely to recover to pre-culling levels (assuming that they were allowed to do

so) within approximately 5 to 10 years. It is anticipated that any associated

ecological changes would return to an equilibrium over a similar period,

perhaps with a ‘lag’ of up to another 5 to 10 years. Thus impacts associated

with the IAPA could extend for somewhere between 10 and 25 years. In

order to define an appropriate baseline, it is therefore necessary to predict

the degree to which the ecological resources in the local area would be

expected to change in the absence of an operation to remove badgers from

the IAPA.

This ‘future baseline’ is influenced by a number of factors, in particular

existing trends associated with the species in question, climate change and

the cumulative impacts from any other projects in the IAPA or surrounding

area. The latter can be defined as ‘the predicted changes in the baseline

condition of a particular ecological resource resulting from incremental

changes caused by other present or reasonably foreseeable actions

together with the project under assessment’. Predicting the future baseline

of key ecological receptors within the IAPA is problematic and any such

estimates must be interpreted with caution.

To accurately predict the abundance of a key ecological receptor, it is

necessary to know its current abundance and its status (i.e increasing,

decreasing or stable) as well as the current rate of change. Where possible

therefore the best available data sources have been used to estimate future

baselines, but it is essential that these are viewed with their limitations in

mind. The future baseline estimates for the selected Key Ecological

Receptors are discussed for each receptor in Sections 6 and 7.

4.3 Setting the Zone of Influence

The zone of influence of the BRO has been reviewed on an iterative basis

and reflects the extent to which the removal of badgers from the IAPA is

predicted to affect ecological resources in the area, both directly and

indirectly.

For designated sites a precautionary approach was adopted and sites

within a broad geographical area have been considered (see Figure 1 and

Appendix 1).

Consideration of the zones of influence has underpinned the selection of

Key Ecological Receptors, set out below and in Section 5.

An ‘effect area’ that encompasses, in geographic terms, all of the possible

ecological changes discussed in Section 5, is defined in Sections 6 and 7.

For more sedentary species, the zone of influence will be limited to this

area, whereas for more mobile species, the zone of influence encompasses

all those elements of the populations in question that could be affected by

the predicted ecological changes in and around the IAPA. Where

appropriate, the relevant zone of influence is highlighted separately for

Page 11




December 2009

each of the Key Ecological Receptors that have been selected (see

Sections 6 and 7).

4.4 Selection of Potential Key Ecological Receptors

Having broadly identified the ecological resources within the local area and

the zone of influence of the BRO, an investigation was carried out to

identify ecological receptors that might be significantly affected by badger

removal. This involved an updated desk study, which focussed on the

relevant zones of influence, in parallel with the review of expected

ecological changes set out in detail in Section 5.

The results of the desk study were then used to inform the initial valuation

of ecological resources. This identified that a number of species that could

potentially be affected by the removal of badgers were of nature

conservation value (as defined in Section 3.2) and therefore represented

potential Key Ecological Receptors. Further species were identified that

warranted consideration on the basis of their policy or legislative status, or

as a result of their ecological significance (e.g. as prey species), and these

are hereafter referred to as ‘Other Receptors’. An initial list of these species

and any relevant legislation is provided in Appendix 2. The locations of

records for breeding birds, bird sightings and mammals are illustrated in

Figures 2a, 2b and 3 respectively.

Those designated sites also considered as potential Key Ecological

Receptors, on the basis of their location and species composition are

highlighted in Appendix 1. These lists of ‘target’ sites and species were

then reviewed and refined following a more detailed analysis of the

potential ecological changes associated with the BRO; this process is

described in Section 5.

Page 12




December 2009

5 Possible Ecological Changes as a Result of

Removing Badgers from the IAPA

5.1 Potential Consequences of Badger Removal

This section reviews and summarises the scientific literature concerning the

impact of badgers on other UK species, and the potential consequences of

removing badgers from the particular ecosystem in this part of Wales. This

section draws largely on the results of the Defra project “Ecological

Consequences of Removing Badgers from an Ecosystem” as this is the

only study on the subject to have been undertaken and published in the UK

(Defra, 2007). This study was, however, far from comprehensive, and so is

unlikely to have identified all the significant ecological effects of badger

removal during the RBCT. In the present report we have attempted to

highlight potential differences between conditions within the IAPA and

those associated with the RBCT wherever possible, and discuss the

potential implications in terms of the subsequent impact assessment.

In general terms, the IAPA contains a greater proportion of permanent

grassland, more upland habitat types, and less arable land than did the

parts of the UK where the majority of the studies associated with the RBCT

were carried out. Nevertheless, it is considered likely that most of the key

underlying ecological relationships, for example involving trophic

interactions between badgers, foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and rabbits

(Oryctolagus cuniculus) would be broadly similar.

Foxes

Owing to their similar dietary and denning requirements, badgers and foxes

are potential competitors. However, despite sharing many common food

items, they each specialise on different dietary components. For example,

although both species consume earthworms and lagomorphs (rabbits and

hares), a recent study showed that, in terms of biomass, the former were

far more important to badgers and the latter were most important to foxes

(Trewby, 2009). Nevertheless, as both predators are present in similar

habitats and are most active at night, foxes and badgers frequently come

into close contact. As badgers tend to be dominant in any aggressive

interactions, they may potentially ‘interfere’ with the ability of foxes to forage

in a particular place and time.

Foxes may also live in very close proximity to badgers, even occupying part

of an active badger sett (Lloyd, 1980). For the most part the two species

are generally tolerant of one another, although badgers have been known

to predate fox cubs (Macdonald et al., 2004; Neal and Cheeseman, 1996).

Foxes generally prefer to occupy burrows created by other species (Lloyd,

1980; Weber, 1982), have a preference for dens with several entrance

holes (Meia and Weber, 1992) and will use more than one den site whilst

raising cubs (Reynolds et al., 1993). Consequently, a reduction in badger

abundance could increase the availability of disused badger setts as

breeding sites for foxes. This may be a significant benefit for foxes as

appropriate sites may be in limited supply and their construction is likely to

be energetically demanding.

Page 13




December 2009

As badgers are generally dominant in interactions with foxes, they may

have the potential to limit the abundance, breeding performance and

survival of the latter by restricting access to resources. Consequently, a

reduction in badger density might be expected to benefit fox populations.

Experimental evidence to support this prediction was recorded during the

RBCT. During the two years after badger culling commenced, fox density

increased by 57% in culled areas, contrasting with a 27% decrease in

unculled areas (Trewby et al., 2008). Fox densities increased soon after

badger culling commenced, and remained consistently higher for the

remaining 4 years, whilst badger density was suppressed by ‘follow-up’

culls.

It was estimated that the increase in fox density precipitated by badger

culling was of the order of 1.6 to 2.3 foxes per km2 (Trewby et al., 2008).

The results also indicated that fox densities increased more markedly

where badger removal had been more complete. The reasons for these

responses are unclear, as neither fox diet (Trewby 2009) nor fox

occupation of disused badger setts (Defra, 2007) was observed to change

substantially in response to badger culling. The response of the fox

population to the cessation of badger culling is not known.

Smaller mammals including rodents and lagomorphs are important

components of the diet of British foxes (Reynolds and Aebischer 1991;

Reynolds and Tapper 1995; Baker and Harris 2003; Webbon et al., 2006;

Trewby, 2009). If fox predation limits these prey populations (at least in

certain circumstances), then they might be expected to be influenced by

changes in fox abundance (see Lagomorphs below).

Hedgehogs

Badgers are important predators of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) and

also prey on similar invertebrate species (particularly earthworms and

beetles) (Neal and Cheeseman, 1996; Reeve, 1994). Consequently, whilst

avoiding areas where badgers are active, hedgehogs will also be excluded

from the most productive habitats, with potential consequences for

reproductive performance and survival. As a result of this relationship

(called intra-guild predation (IGP); see Polis et al., 1989) predators may

exert a particularly strong influence over prey populations through the

combined effects of predation and competition.

There is experimental evidence from field studies that badgers may

regulate hedgehog populations (Doncaster, 1992; Doncaster 1994). During

the RBCT, hedgehogs were found only rarely in the rural sites that were

surveyed, but in contrast were relatively frequently observed in amenity

areas in and around villages, such as football or cricket pitches (Young et

al. 2006). Such areas may constitute refuges for hedgehogs, where they

are less at risk from predation. However, even in amenity areas, there

were fewer hedgehogs at locations where there were more badger setts in

the surrounding countryside. Hedgehog densities in the amenity areas

increased by more than 100% during the four years following the onset of

badger culling. This contrasted with the situation in areas with no badger

culling, which experienced a slight decline in hedgehog numbers over the

same period (Defra, 2007).

Page 14




December 2009

Other mammalian predators

It is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty what the net effect might

be of badger removal on the abundance and distribution of polecats, stoats

(Mustela erminea) and weasels (Mustela nivalis). The potential issues

associated with bird and lagomorph predation are discussed above.

However, the situation may be further complicated by other elements of

competition and intra-guild predation associated with foxes. Given the

greater dietary overlaps, the balance of probabilities suggest that these

species would, overall, be more likely to be adversely affected by increases

in fox numbers, rather than to benefit from a reduction in badger numbers.

Nevertheless, no scientific data is currently available to support or refute

this prediction.

Lagomorphs

Badgers will prey on young lagomorphs, with rabbits occurring frequently in

the diet under some circumstances, but leverets are relatively uncommon

prey (Neal and Cheeseman, 1996). Young rabbits appear to be taken by

digging out the nest. Given this prey selection, a reduction in badger

abundance might be expected to release lagomorphs from this predation

pressure, potentially allowing rabbit populations in particular to increase.

However, this is a largely speculative scenario as there is no evidence that

badger predation limits rabbit numbers. Another possible mechanism that

could allow rabbit populations to increase in the face of a reduction in

badger abundance, is the associated increase in disused setts, which could

provide extra breeding sites for rabbits.

Both rabbits and brown hares are more commonly predated by foxes than

by badgers (Reynolds and Aebischer 1991; Reynolds and Tapper 1995;

Baker and Harris 2003; Webbon et al., 2006; Trewby, 2009), and it is via

effects on fox abundance that badger culling may be most likely to affect

lagomorphs. Studies of rabbit predation by foxes provide some evidence of

the potential for limitation (e.g. Trout et al., 2000) but this may only be

possible at lower prey densities (see Pech et al., 1992). There is, however,

more compelling evidence that hare populations may be vulnerable to fox

predation (Reynolds and Tapper, 1995) which may limit their distribution

and abundance (Vaughan et al., 2003; Lindstrom et al., 1994).

Rabbits in particular are an important prey species for other native

carnivores such as polecats, stoats and weasels. Any reduction in rabbit

abundance brought about by increased predation pressure from foxes

could therefore potentially adversely affect these species. Although,

equally, the removal of a competitor such as the badger may enable the

smaller mustelids to exploit a lagomorph resource to a greater extent than

is possible while competing with the badger.

Surveys carried out during the RBCT did not detect any significant effects

on rabbit or hare populations in response to badger culling (Trewby 2009),

despite the confirmed increase in fox densities. However, this does not

exclude the possibility of consequences for their populations in different

areas of the country, where the structure of the animal community may

differ. In the RBCT areas where lagomorphs and foxes were monitored,

rabbits were almost an order of magnitude more abundant than hares,

Page 15




December 2009

therefore the presence of such abundant fox prey may have significantly

buffered hares from the effects of fox predation. Hence, for example, if fox

numbers were to increase in response to badger removal in an area with

relatively lower rabbit abundance, then the consequences for the hare

population may be more significant.

Ground nesting birds3

The remains of a wide variety of birds have been found in badger droppings

and stomach contents (Hounsome and Delahay, 2005). However, an

unknown proportion of these are likely to have been taken as carrion, and

the potential impact of badgers on bird populations is unclear. There is

limited anecdotal evidence that badger predation can cause significant

losses of game birds, particularly eggs and chicks (e.g. Andersen, 1955).

Badger predation has been implicated in localised impacts on gull and

wader colonies (Oro et al., 1999; Hailey and Goutner, 2002) and has been

suggested as a contributory factor in the national decline in ground nesting

birds (e.g. Butler, 2003), although there is no scientific evidence to support

such a claim.

Badgers are opportunistic foragers with a wide diet, of which birds form

only a small part (Hounsome and Delahay, 2005), so it seems likely that

any significant impact on bird populations would be infrequent, highly

localised and confined to ground nesting species. In such circumstances a

reduction in badger density might be expected to benefit vulnerable groundnesting

bird populations.

However, if badger removal were to increase the abundance of foxes,

hedgehogs and/or other potential predators such as stoat (Mustela

erminea), weasel (Mustela nivalis) or polecat, then ground-nesting bird

populations might experience higher levels of predation. A recent review

(Macdonald and Bolton, 2008) concluded that nocturnal mammalian

predators made the largest single contribution to the predation of wader

(Charadriiformes) nests, and that in certain circumstances the level of

predation was unsustainable and may be associated with declining

populations. The evidence for this is far from unequivocal and changes in

farming practices have also been implicated (Hounsome, 2005). The

badger is a predator of ground nesting bird nests and as such its removal

may simply mean that the nests that would have fallen prey to badgers are

taken by other predators such as hedgehogs, foxes and smaller mustelids.

Increases in fox numbers resulting from the BRO may however, have a

disproportionate effect on the survival of ground nesting birds and the

possibility that removing badgers could have a significant adverse impact

on populations of ground nesting birds cannot be ruled out.

The impact of badger culling on skylarks and meadow pipits (Anthus

pratensis) was investigated during the RBCT (Defra, 2007). Both are

ground nesting species that have been recorded in the diet of the badger.

3 In the context of this report the term ‘ground nesting birds’ also includes species that nest

close to the ground, in situations where they are potentially at risk from a similar range of

predators.

Page 16




December 2009

For four years from the start of badger culling, the abundance of meadow

pipits remained relatively constant in areas where badgers were culled.

However, over the same period their numbers declined significantly in

corresponding areas where no badgers were removed. The same pattern

was also observed in skylarks, although it was not statistically significant.

One possible explanation for this is that the removal of badgers, and hence

a degree of predation pressure enabled populations of meadow pipits to

remain constant whilst other factors served to suppress populations in nonremoval

areas.

However, by chance the badger culling sites where these species were

monitored had larger areas of prime habitat for these species. Hence, an

equally valid interpretation is that there was a regional reduction in meadow

pipit abundance due to unmeasured environmental factors, resulting in a

contraction in their range towards these core areas. Therefore the role of

badger removal in this observed trend should be treated with caution. It

should however be noted that these results were derived from areas where

fox density increased by an average of 57% in response to badger culling.

Other species

Badgers predate a wide variety of invertebrates, in particular earthworms.

However, the extent to which this may limit prey populations is unclear.

Although there is no evidence to support or refute such an effect, it seems

generally unlikely as many invertebrate prey species are highly abundant

and their numbers fluctuate widely with respect to climatic conditions and

large-scale land-use change. These phenomena are likely for the most

part to dwarf any impact of badger predation. However, invertebrate

species that are already in decline (for other reasons) such as some

bumblebees, could potentially be adversely affected by predation pressure.

Badgers do predate bumblebees, but there is no scientific evidence that

they influence their abundance.

Certain species of ground beetle (Carabidae), in particular the

subterranean ground beetle (Laemostenus terricola) are commonly found

within spoil heaps at badger setts. A reduction in badger numbers would

curtail such excavations and could therefore potentially influence the

occurrence and distribution of this species, although this is considered

unlikely. Also, L. terricola is frequently found in and around rabbit warrens

and fox earths (Gruttke, 2000), both of which might increase in abundance

in response to badger culling, and thereby ameliorate any loss of habitat

resulting from the removal of badgers.

5.2 Revised Assessment of Ecological Receptors

The potential Key Ecological Receptors and Other Receptors identified in

Section 4.4 were reviewed, on the basis of the possible ecological changes

detailed in Section 5.1, to ensure that only those for which a significant

effect was possible were taken forward for detailed assessment. This

process is documented, for each group of potential receptors, in the

following sub-sections.

Page 17




December 2009

5.2.1 Designated sites

Sites of European importance

These sites are all dealt with in the Habitats Directive Assessment (HDA)

Screening Report, and are not therefore discussed in detail here.

Other designated sites

Each of the following sites is considered to be of UK importance.

Aberarth – Carreg Wylan SSSI; Cardigan Island Wildlife Trust

Reserve and SSSI; and Newport Cliffs SSSI

These three sites are designated, at least in part, on the basis of their use

by roosting and nesting choughs and the value of their maritime, coastal

and cliff-top vegetation. There is the potential that both elements could be

affected although the vegetation on Cardigan Island would not be), and

therefore these sites will be taken forward for detailed assessment.

It is predicted that the BRO would lead to an increase in the number of

foxes (see Section 5.1), which would in turn increase predation pressure on

rabbits. This could result in a diminished rabbit population and hence

reduced grazing, with the potential for adverse impacts on grassland

habitat which is, at least in part, rabbit-maintained and extremely important

for choughs (McCanch, 2000). It is likely that choughs in this part of Wales

all belong to the same wider population and that individuals may move

between the SPAs and the IAPA, either when foraging during the winter

and/or during periods of dispersal.

This is discussed in more detail in the Habitats Regulations Assessment

(HDA) Screening Report.

Cemaes Head Wildlife Trust Reserve and SSSI

As with the sites above, Cemaes Head is designated, in part, for the small

population of breeding chough it supports. It is also used by other ground

nesting birds that could be affected directly by increases in fox predation

(see below for a rationale and list of the species considered to be most at

risk). This site will therefore also be taken forward for detailed assessment.

Teifi Marshes Wildlife Trust Reserve (part of Afon Teifi SSSI); Cwm

Bach (Sychpant) SSSI; Gallt Lanerch – Coed Gelli-Deg SSSI

(including Llanerch Alder Carr Wildlife Trust Reserve); Gweunydd

Blaencleddau SSSI; Pengelli Forest and Pant-Teg Wood NNR, SSSI

and Wildlife Trust Reserve

Each of these sites includes as part of its designation details species of

ground nesting birds that might be affected by the BRO (see below for a

rationale and list of the species considered to be most at risk). For this

reason, these sites will also be taken forward for detailed assessment.

Page 18




December 2009

Caeau Crug Bychan, Ty Gwyn A Lleyn Ysgaw SSSI

This site is valuable as a feeding area for chough and is likely to support

ground nesting birds that could be affected by the BRO. For these reasons

the site will be taken forward for comprehensive assessment.

Other sites

On the basis of the species and habitats for which they were designated, it

is considered probable that the BRO would not have any significant impacts

on any of the other designated sites listed in Table 1 of Appendix 1.

5.2.2 Birds

Chough

The population of choughs within the zone of influence is considered likely

to be of ‘National’ value. There are recent records of chough in and around

the IAPA, and this part of Wales is known to be of significant importance for

this species, which is rare throughout much of the remainder of the UK. The

rationale for identifying a potential impact on chough is set out above. This

species will therefore be considered in the comprehensive assessment.

Kingfisher

The kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) population within the zone of influence for this

species is considered to be of ‘County/Regional’ importance and there are

recent records of sightings within the IAPA. There is some anecdotal

evidence that badgers occasionally dig down into kingfisher nest chambers

within a river bank and predate the chicks (Cheeseman pers. comm.). It is

not known whether foxes also exhibit this behaviour. However, such events

are likely to be rare and therefore it is considered highly unlikely that an

increase in foxes, and a decrease in badger numbers would significantly

affect kingfisher breeding success or abundance. Kingfishers will therefore

not be taken forward into the more comprehensive assessment.

Ground nesting birds

Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), curlew (Numenius

arquata), merlin (Falco columbarius), skylark (Alauda arvensis), song

thrush (Turdus philomelos), reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), nightjar

(Caprimulgus europaeus), woodlark (Lullula arborea), wood warbler

(Phylloscopus sibilatrix), grey partridge (Perdix perdix), grasshopper

warbler (Locustella naevia) and tree pipit (Anthus trivialis), all nest on or

close to the ground and are therefore considered to be at potential risk from

predators such as badgers and foxes amongst others.

This assemblage of species is considered likely, within the zone of

influence, to be of ‘County’ importance, and there are recent records of

most of these species within the IAPA. However, it should be noted that

there are no recent breeding records of some of these species (lapwing,

curlew, merlin, nightjar and woodlark). If present lapwing and curlew

populations could be of national (Wales) importance, given the status of

these species. Given the uncertainty, the precautionary principle will be

adopted, and the ground nesting bird assemblage will therefore be

Page 19




December 2009

considered as a Key Ecological Receptor in the more comprehensive

assessment.

5.2.3 Mammals

Water vole

The water vole population within the zone of influence is considered likely

to be of ‘County/Regional’ importance and there are recent records of this

species within the IAPA. However, water voles are unlikely to be

significantly affected by the ecological consequences of the BRO and will

therefore not be taken forward for further consideration.

The rationale for this is that (a) any variations in predation pressure

associated with the changes predicted in Section 5.1 would not be

expected to affect water vole populations since they tend not to be taken

frequently by foxes; (b) no changes are predicted with regards to mink

(Mustela vison), the water vole’s principal predator; and (c) no changes are

predicted to the habitats upon which water voles depend.

Dormouse

The population of this species within the zone of influence is considered

likely to be of ‘County’ importance and there is only one record from within

the IAPA. Dormice are unlikely to be significantly affected by the ecological

changes associated with the BRO, since they tend not to be predated by

foxes (or hedgehogs) and their habitats are unlikely to be affected; this

species will therefore not be taken forward for further consideration.

Grey squirrel

Although there are recent records of this species within the IAPA, the grey

squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) is an alien species in the UK and as such is

not considered to be of any conservation value in its own right. However,

they are significant competitors of the native red squirrel, and are therefore

to be considered as of conservation importance. As a Schedule 9 species it

is illegal to release grey squirrels into the wild. A standard operating

procedure will be prepared to deal with the significant chance that grey

squirrels are caught as a non-target species during the BRO. This species

will not be taken forward for further consideration.

Rabbit

There are recent records of this species within the IAPA and rabbits may be

affected by changes arising from the BRO, through increased predation

pressure associated with the predicted increase in fox numbers. As rabbits

are of negligible conservation importance, this species has not been

identified as a Key Ecological Receptor. However, given the ecological

importance of the species, the likely impacts on rabbits will be assessed in

more detail as an ‘Other Ecological Receptor’.

Brown hare

The population of this species within the zone of influence is considered

likely to be of ‘Regional’ importance and there are recent records from

within the IAPA. Hares could suffer increased predation from the predicted

Page 20




December 2009

rise in fox numbers during the BRO. Hares are therefore considered as a

Key Ecological Receptor in the more comprehensive assessment.

Hedgehog

This species is considered to be of ‘County’ importance and there are

recent records from within the IAPA. Hedgehog numbers are predicted to

increase following the BRO due to reduced predation pressure from

badgers and greater access to food resources. This species may also be

of ecological significance, in particular as a predator of ground nesting

birds. Hedgehogs are therefore considered as a Key Ecological Receptor

in the more comprehensive assessment.

Pine marten

There are no records of pine marten from within or around the IAPA. The

nearest recorded sighting is approximately 20 km from the IAPA boundary.

Given the large home ranges occupied by this species and the difficulties

inherent in detecting them (particularly when they exist at low densities), it

is possible that pine marten may use parts of the IAPA, particularly the

upland habitats in the vicinity of the IAPA’s southern boundary. It is likely

that pine marten would be adversely affected by an increase in fox

abundance through increased competition and intra-guild predation.

However in the absence of any conclusive evidence of their presence and

given the fact that much of the habitat within the IAPA is not particularly

suitable for them, pine marten will not be considered further within the

detailed impact assessment.

Polecat

The polecat population within the zone of influence is considered likely to

be of ‘County’ importance and there are recent records from within the

IAPA. Given that it is conceivable that polecats could be affected by the

consequences of the BRO, this species will be taken forward as a Key

Ecological Receptor for further consideration.

American mink

Although there are recent records of this species within the IAPA, the

American mink is an alien species in the UK and as such is not considered

to be of any conservation value in its own right. However, they are

significant predators of native species especially water voles, and are

therefore to be considered as of conservation importance. As a Schedule 9

species it is illegal to release mink into the wild. A standard operating

procedure will be prepared to deal with the small chance that mink are

caught as a non-target species during the BRO. This species will not be

taken forward for further consideration.

Otter

The otter population within the zone of influence (outside the relevant sites

of European importance) is considered to be of ‘Regional’ importance and

there are recent records from within the IAPA. Despite badger trapping

operations (both in terms of culling operations and academic studies)

having been undertaken in a wide range of locations across the UK, there

Page 21




December 2009

Page 22




December 2009

are no recorded instances of otters having been accidentally captured.

This is probably at least in part due to the type of bait used to capture

badgers.

Notwithstanding the very low likelihood of otters being captured incidentally,

it is conceivable that otters could be affected by disturbance associated

with repeated capture operations, were these to be undertaken close to a

well-used resting site or a breeding/rearing holt. In order to avoid any such

impacts, a specific Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been drafted

in order to avoid disturbing otter resting sites (this is included as Appendix 1

to the HDA document).

Otters are therefore very unlikely to be affected significantly, and so will not

be taken forward into the more comprehensive assessment.

Fox

There are recent records of this species within the IAPA and foxes may be

affected by changes arising from the BRO and, in turn, affect other,

potentially important species. As foxes are of negligible conservation

importance, this species has not been identified as a Key Ecological

Receptor. However, given the ecological importance of the species, the

likely impacts on foxes will be assessed in more detail as an ‘Other

Ecological Receptor’.

5.3 Summary of Ecological Receptors

The final scope of the assessment is summarised in Table 5.1 below. This

identifies the proposed ‘Key Ecological Receptors’, and ‘Other Ecological

Receptors’ for which detailed impact assessment is required.

Table 5.1: Identification of Ecological Receptors.

Ecological Receptor Associated Species /

Habitats

Value Potentially Significant Effect

Key receptors

European designated

sites

(Dealt with in HDA

Screening Report)

Chough International Degradation of key foraging areas outside the SPA

as a result of reduced rabbit grazing. Possible

impacts associated with effects on adjoining

populations.

Other designated sites Chough; coastal, maritime

and cliff-top plant

communities; ground nesting

birds; polecat; brown hare

UK Degradation of key foraging areas and valuable

plant communities as a result of reduced rabbit

grazing. Increases in predation pressure as a result

of elevated fox numbers. Some reduction in

predation pressure as a direct result of badger

removal. Possible adverse effects from increased

competition and intra-guild predation associated

with elevated fox population.

Chough Cliffs; semi-improved and

unimproved grassland.

National value. Degradation of key foraging areas as a result of

reduced rabbit grazing.

Ground nesting bird

assemblage.

Merlin, lapwing, skylark, song

thrush, curlew, cuckoo,

nightjar, woodlark, wood

warbler, grasshopper

warbler, reed bunting,

lapwing, grey partridge and

tree pipit. Unimproved and

semi-improved grassland;

arable land; marshes;

woodland.

National and County

value.

Increases in predation pressure as a result of

elevated fox numbers. Some reduction in predation

pressure as a direct result of badger removal.

Page 23




December 2009

Page 24

tial ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA

ological Impact Assessment (EcIA)


December 2009

Ecological Receptor Associated Species /

Habitats

Value Potentially Significant Effect

Brown Hare Agricultural land, especially

rough pasture abutting arable

land. Also lowland heathland;

moorland; open woodland

and parkland, in close

proximity to agricultural land.

Regional value. Increases in predation pressure as a result of

elevated fox numbers.

Hedgehog Semi-improved and improved

grassland; open woodlands;

hedgerows; parks and

gardens.

County value. Possible beneficial effect through release of

predation pressure and reduced competition.

Polecat Wide variety of farmland

habitats.

County value. Possible adverse effects from increased

competition and intra-guild predation associated

with elevated fox population.

Other receptors

Rabbit Wide variety of farmland

habitats; agricultural and

coastal grasslands.

Negligible value. Possible adverse effects from increased predation

pressure associated with elevated fox population.

Fox Wide variety of farmland and

other habitats.

Negligible value. Probable beneficial effects through reduced

competition.

Poten

Ec

6 Baseline Conditions

6.1 Methodology

6.1.1 Desk Study

The desk study was undertaken to obtain existing records relating to

features of nature conservation importance both within the IAPA, and within

the wider area defined on the basis of the zone of influence for the project.

As explained in Section 4, a precautionary approach was taken for sites of

European importance, with information collated from all of south-west

Wales (see the HDA Screening Report for details).

For the other designated sites and species of nature conservation

importance, data were collected from an area at least 5 km beyond the

maximum extent of the IAPA (and up to 10 km in many cases). This

comfortably exceeds the maximum likely zone of influence in relation to the

ecological changes discussed in Section 5.1; the rationale for delineating

this zone is explained in detail in Section 7.

A variety of organisations were approached in order to identify any existing

ecological information relating to the IAPA and its surroundings. They are

listed below along with the data that they provided.

• West Wales Biodiversity Information Centre provided records of

mammal and bird sightings.

• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Wales did not

provide any information.

• British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Wales provided records of

breeding birds.

• Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority did not have any

relevant information to provide.

• The Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales provided a listing of

mammal and bird species recorded in their reserves.

• The Vincent Wildlife Trust (VWT) provided polecat records from the

VWT 2004-2006 survey and pine marten sightings records from 1995.

• The Pembrokeshire Bird Group provided up to date distribution maps

of relevant species of bird

The following websites were reviewed:

• www.magic.gov.uk;

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) website: www.ukbap.org.uk; and

• Pembrokeshire BAP website:

http://www.biodiversitypembrokeshire.org.uk/ action%20plans.html.

• www.bto.org

• www.ccw.gov.uk

It is important to stress that many of the datasets consulted during this

process only ever record the presence of individuals of a given species,

rather than their absence. As a result the datasets listed above have only

been used to confirm the presence of a species within the IAPA. At no

Page 25




December 2009

stage were datasets used to infer absence, abundance and/or limits to

distribution.

Data supplied by the BTO consisted of two types of information. Atlas data

and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. The Atlas data are derived from the

last national mapping project 1988 – 1991 and are a record of the

confirmed or suspected breeding of species within surveyed ‘tetrads’ 2 x 2

km squares. There are two main limitations to these data. Firstly, it is only

ever possible to confirm presence and the fact that a species has not been

recorded within a certain tetrad does not confirm its absence from that

area. Secondly, the data used for the last National Atlas were collected

between 1988 and 1991, and are subsequently now almost certainly out of

date. However, for the current report the data were only used to identify the

presence of each species within the IAPA and were not used to make

assumptions concerning abundance or specific distribution.

The BBS data were derived from a maximum of seven BBS squares which

had been surveyed at least four times since 1994. The BBS data were also

only used to detect the presence of species within the IAPA, and were not

used to estimate abundance or to map distributions.

The atlas data from the Pembrokeshire Bird Group are by far the most

contemporary having been collected a recently as 2006, although again

these data have only been used to confirm the presence of vulnerable

ground nesting species.

6.1.2 Consultations

To date, consultations specifically with regard to this EcIA have comprised

reviews of two drafts of this document by CCW, informal discussions with

CCW’s national and local teams, and specific meetings with CCW, PCNPA

and the Pembrokeshire Chough Study Group PCSG) to discuss issues

relating specifically to choughs.

6.2 Key Ecological Receptors

This section details the baseline conditions for those ecological resources

identified during the Scoping and Valuation process, as ‘Key Ecological

Receptors’ or ‘Other Ecological Receptors’. For each receptor, the details

of the desk study carried out to inform the assessment are described; the

results of the desk study are summarised to help indicate the abundance

and distribution of the receptor; and the status of the receptor is reassessed

to confirm the nature conservation value assigned earlier in the

scoping and valuation process.

Page 26




December 2009

6.2.1 Determining current and future baseline conditions

Critically, this assessment has been based on the predicted future condition

or status of the ecological receptors in the absence of the BRO (as

described in Section 4). This future baseline is intended to incorporate the

duration of the BRO, along with the estimated time it would take for the

badger population, and all affected receptors, to recover to their pre-cull

status.

For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that the active

BRO will continue for 5 years.

The recovery of badger populations to pre-cull levels is dependent on a

number of factors including the density of the badger population within the

wider area, the efficiency of the cull (i.e. the proportion of the badger

population that is removed), and the existence of any significant barriers to

re-colonisation (e.g. large rivers). It has been estimated that on average it

would take 5 years for a culled badger population to recover to its pre-cull

size (Anderson & Trewhella, 1985), although a number of empirical field

studies have shown this to be highly variable, with periods of three

(Tuyttens et al., 2000) and nine years (Cheeseman et al., 1993) having

been recorded.

The position of the IAPA in a coastal location, to the north and west of an

upland area, and with several substantial rivers nearby, indicates the

presence of some features that might be expected to limit the recolonisation

/ recovery of badger populations, at least across parts of the

area. In the absence of any other information on the density of badgers in

the IAPA, and the likely efficiency of any cull, it has been assumed that

badger numbers would be likely to recover to pre-culling levels (assuming

that they were allowed to do so) within approximately 5 to 10 years,

although given the size of the IAPA and the possible impediments to recolonisation

by badgers, in practice, the upper end of this estimate would

be more likely.

It is anticipated that any associated ecological changes would return to

equilibrium over a similar period, perhaps with a ‘lag’ of up to another 5 to

10 years. Thus impacts associated with the IAPA could extend for

somewhere between 10 and 25 years. The degree to which the ecological

resources in the local area would be expected to change in the absence of

an operation to remove badgers from the IAPA has therefore been

estimated over this period.

The predicted future baseline for all Key Ecological Receptors listed below

has been determined on the basis of existing trends in the status of that

species.

Page 27




December 2009

6.2.2 Baseline conditions for the Key Ecological Receptors

Designated Sites

Summary details of each of the designated sites are presented in Table 1,

in Appendix 1. Given that each of the sites has been selected as a Key

Ecological Receptor on the basis that it supports one or more of the

species considered below, it is inappropriate to attempt to define a future

baseline separately for each site; the trends discussed below would,

generally, also be expected to be applicable to the relevant components of

the designated site in question.

Chough

Choughs regularly breed along the coast within the IAPA and Wales holds

approximately 75% of the UK breeding population. Pembrokeshire supports

approximately 73 pairs (Berry et al. 2008) (c.15% of the UK population).

Consequently, the breeding population of choughs within the IAPA is

deemed to be of National importance. Two SPAs outside the IAPA

(Castlemartin Coast SPA and Ramsey and St Davids Peninsular Coast

SPA) and three SSSIs within it, have also been designated largely as a

result of their populations of breeding choughs. Figure 2a shows records of

choughs within the wider area, although these data should not be

considered exhaustive.

By using contemporary data, it is possible to predict that if the chough

population in Pembrokeshire continues to grow at the current rate, by 2019

(10 years after the cull) there will be approximately 120 pairs, an increase

of 64%. However, this is based on the current growth rate of the population

and does not take into account other variables such as carrying capacity of

suitable habitat in the county, and unforeseen events such as severe

winters. In the absence of any other information, however, it is possible to

determine that the likely future baseline of for this species will be

somewhere between the current population size (73) and 120 pairs.

Ground Nesting Bird Assemblage

The species listed within this assemblage have been selected on the basis

of three criteria:

1. A ground or near ground nesting species.

2. Recorded breeding in the vicinity of the IAPA area in the last 15

years.

3. Listed on either Schedule 1 of the WCA and / or the UKBAP list,

and / or listed in Section 42 of the NERC Act.

The only exception to this is the meadow pipit which has been listed as a

result of the cuckoo’s (listed in Section 42) propensity for parasitizing this

species. These criteria were applied to the data received from BTO, the

West Wales Biodiversity Information Centre and the Pembrokeshire Bird

Group. Consequently, the original list in Appendix 2 was thereby reduced

to the following: cuckoo, curlew, grasshopper warbler, grey partridge,

Page 28




December 2009

lapwing, meadow pipit, merlin, nightjar, reed bunting, skylark, song thrush,

tree pipit, woodlark and wood warbler.

Four types of data were collated from the sources listed above. The BTO

supplied both Atlas data and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data, while

observations of species within geographic locations were supplied by the

West Wales Biodiversity Information Centre. The Pembrokeshire Bird

Group also supplied up to date atlas data.

The BTO atlas data did however, have one major limitation. It was

collected during surveys between 1988 and 1991 (Gibbons et al., 1993)

and is therefore now at least 18 years old. Between 1988 and 1991

volunteers surveyed the vast majority of all 10 x 10km squares in Britain

and Ireland. This resulted in a comprehensive and detailed distribution

map for all UK breeding species.

The BBS is carried out every year across the UK in approximately 3000

1km² squares. The detailed methodology and annual repetition makes the

BBS data invaluable in tracking the population trends of breeding birds in

the UK using data on percentage change rather than actual abundance

estimates. The BBS is however, limited in coverage, with only 263 1km²

squares surveyed in Wales in 2007, and only seven within the IAPA and

the zone of influence.

The data supplied by the West Wales Biodiversity Information Centre is

essentially a list of sightings and it was often not possible to determine

whether a species had been recorded as breeding. However, if observed

during the breeding season it is likely that the species was breeding or at

least attempting to breed in that location.

The atlas data supplied by the Pembrokeshire Bird Group (based on similar

methods to the National Atlas data) are the most up to date bird data that it

was possible to source.

Given the variation in quality and relevance of the data collated, a

precautionary approach was taken with regard to their interpretation. Any

species recorded within the zone of influence during the breeding season

and previously identified according to the criteria outlined above, has been

included in the “ground nesting bird assemblage” and is discussed here as

a key ecological receptor. Generally, the collated data provided information

on presence / absence of a species within the zone of influence and not

with detailed information on its abundance or distribution.

The species assemblage listed above is considered here to be a Key

Ecological Receptor, and has been valued in Section 5 as being of County

importance. Although it has not been possible to base this valuation on any

contemporary abundance and distribution data, it is still considered that

‘County’ best describes the likely level of importance of the assemblage of

ground nesting birds that occurs within the zone of influence.

The future predicted baseline for the ground nesting bird assemblage has

been based largely on population trend data generated from the BBS and

Page 29




December 2009

presented on the BTO website. It should be noted however, that the

prediction of population trends is an inexact science, and the figures listed

below should be treated with caution and considered as indicative only.

The data presented in Table 6.2 are based on an extrapolation from the

population trend graphs on the BTO website. The existing slope from 2001

– 2006 was extrapolated to 2020-2035. Major assumptions are implicit in

any such exercise. For example, it is assumed that the rate of change will

stay constant over time. This is infrequently the case with most trends

either flattening off or becoming steeper. It also does not take into the

account the possibility that a population may reverse its existing trend.

However, in order to attempt to predict a future baseline for these species it

is necessary to utilise the best available information and assume a constant

trend. Where possible the current trend is based on Welsh data only,

although for several species only UK trend data was available. The latter

carries with it the risk that the national trend may mask local trends or

variations.

Table 6.2. Species included in the key ecological receptor “ground nesting

bird assemblage”

Species Data source Current trend

2001- 2006

Predicted change 2009 - 2019

Skylark Wales - 3% Possible slight decline

Meadow pipit* Wales - 13%

Likely to have declined

significantly over this period

Lapwing

Wales 1987-

19982 - 77% Significant decline predicted

Cuckoo Wales - 19%



Curlew*¹ Wales - 26%



Merlin Wales

Increased from

1983 – 19933 uncertain

Song thrush* Wales - 2% Possible slight decline

Reed bunting* UK + 24% Uncertain trend

Tree pipit Wales - 22 %



Woodlark No data available but only recently recorded breeding in Wales

Nightjar Wales

Increase from

1992 – 20044 Possible increase

Grasshopper

warbler*

UK - 8% Uncertain trend

Page 30




December 2009

Wood warbler UK - 16% Likely significant decline

Grey partridge UK - 14%



* based on highly volatile trends;

¹ showing recent signs of stabilising.

2 Wilson et al. 2001, 3 Rebbeca & Bainbridge 1998 and 4 Conway et al.

2007.

Brown Hare

It is estimated that the British brown hare population is approximately

750,000 with roughly 58,000 of these occurring in Wales (Harris et al 1995).

Brown hares have been recorded within the IAPA and the zone of

influence, although there is no available data on population sizes. It is

estimated that the UK brown hare population declined by 9% from 1995 to

2005, although changes in numbers may have varied significantly between

regions and habitats. In habitats similar to those within the zone of

influence there may only have been a minor decline (-1%), although hare

populations in the uplands may have reduced by as much as 39%. This is

a somewhat confused picture and thus makes it hard to establish a

predicted baseline. However, considering most of the IAPA comprises

“westerly lowlands” (Davis et al., 2007), the 1% decline figure has been

used as the most appropriate indicator of a future baseline. If the hare

population continues to decline at the same rate, a reduction by a further 1-

3% would be predicted over the life of the project. As a result of its

conservation status and uncertain population trends, it is suggested that the

brown hare should continue to be considered as a Key Ecological Receptor

and valued as important at the Regional scale.

Hedgehog

Data from the West Wales Biodiversity Information Centre indicated that

there was an established hedgehog population in the general vicinity of the

IAPA. There are, however, no available data on the abundance of this

species within the IAPA or the wider area. It is estimated that there are

approximately 145,000 hedgehogs in Wales (Harris et al 1995). The

Peoples Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) carries out an annual roadkill

survey of a number of mammal species including the hedgehog.

Although of limited use in estimating abundance, this method provides a

relatively robust index of population change. The PTES road kill survey

shows that in Wales the hedgehog population is increasing after a dramatic

drop in 2001. If the population continues to grow at its current rate it could

increase by something in the order of 60% during the lifetime of the project,

potentially returning to its 2001 level. Given the paucity of other more

localised data on the hedgehog population, it is proposed that this estimate

is established as the predicted future baseline. However, as with several of

the other receptors, it should be emphasised that this is only an

approximate estimate in the absence of more robust data and should be

treated with caution. As a result of its conservation status and only recent

indications of population recovery, it is suggested that this species should

Page 31




December 2009

continue to be listed as a Key Ecological Receptor, and valued as important

at the County scale.

Polecat

In the late-1990s it was estimated that there were in the order of 17,000

polecats in Wales (Harris et al 1995). Whilst the species continues to

expand its range elsewhere in the UK, re-colonising areas it formerly

occupied, it is likely that population densities have remained relatively

constant in this part of Wales in recent years, and are likely to remain so

into the future. It is possible that polecat numbers are locally linked to

variations in agricultural management, rabbit numbers, game-keeping

activities, non-target effects of rodenticides and hybridisation with feral

ferrets. There are records of polecats from within the IAPA and it is likely

that this species is relatively widespread in farmland habitats within the

area. As a result of its conservation status, it is suggested that this species

should continue to be listed as a Key Ecological Receptor, and valued as

important at the County scale.

Other Ecological Receptors

Rabbit

Rabbits are known to be widespread and relatively abundant within the

IAPA, particularly associated with closely grazed agricultural and coastal

grasslands. It is likely that their numbers will continue to fluctuate over the

coming decades, in response to disease outbreaks (myxomatosis and

rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD) outbreaks are known to have occurred

relatively recently in this part of Wales), and changes in land use and

agricultural practices. This species is of limited intrinsic conservation value,

but may be of considerable importance as part of the ecological changes

associated with badger removal; it will therefore be taken forward for

detailed assessment as an ‘Other Ecological Receptor’.

Fox

Foxes are relatively common and widespread in this part of Wales and are

known to be present across the IAPA. A recent study in Wales (Battersby,

2005) estimated mean fox densities in Pembrokeshire to be 3.55km-² (2.62

– 4.82 km-2). In the absence of substantial disease outbreaks, it is unlikely

that there would be a substantial net change over the lifetime of the project.

As with rabbits, foxes are of limited intrinsic conservation value, but may be

of considerable importance as part of the ecological changes associated

with badger removal; they will therefore be taken forward for detailed

assessment as an ‘Other Ecological Receptor’.

Page 32




December 2009

7 Impact Assessment and Options for Mitigation

7.1 Generic Impact Parameters

In most impact assessments, the parameters of the different impacts would

be characterised for each receptor. However, in this case, given that the

potential impacts on Key Ecological Receptors all stem from the same

complex series of possible ecological changes associated with badger

removal, it is appropriate to deal first with the impact characteristics that are

relevant to all receptors.

Magnitude:

Given the uncertain nature of the ecological changes discussed in Section

5, predicting the magnitude of any such changes is particularly problematic.

On the basis of the evidence to date, an increase in fox density across at

least part of the IAPA is probable. It is also probable that such an increase

would be substantial (perhaps in the order of 50% or more). However,

estimating the magnitude of any of the consequential effects of increasing

fox density (particularly in combination with other potential changes) in this

part of Wales lacks any kind of evidence base. Nevertheless, wherever

possible, some indication of likely impact magnitude has been attempted

for each of the receptors, below.

Extent:

During the RBCT the influence of badger culling on badger social structure

in the adjoining no cull areas was investigated and it was concluded that

culling probably does not have a major impact upon the density of badgers

in adjoining areas but does tend to disrupt social organisation (Woodroffe et

al. 2006). This study did not attempt to estimate the precise extent of any

depressive effect of badger removal on the surrounding badger population,

although this clearly tends to be limited in extent. For the purposes of this

assessment, it is considered safe to assume that, within a buffer of

approximately 2 or 3 badger social group territories, badger density will

have returned to a ‘natural’ level, and the effects of, for example, increased

dispersal around the margins of the BRO will have disappeared. A buffer

zone of approximately 2km around the IAPA boundaries would represent a

conservative assessment of the diameters of 2 or 3 badger social group

territories.

It is also appropriate to assume that any effects that might arise as a result

of badger removal would be similarly limited in extent beyond the zone of

reduced badger density. Foxes are unlikely to be able to exist at elevated

densities beyond the area of substantially reduced badger density and any

of the effects associated with an increase in the density of foxes, for

example reductions in some prey populations, would be expected to be

similarly limited. For example, a localised increase in the mortality rate of a

given species of ground nesting bird might act as a ‘sink’ for dispersing

‘surplus’ individuals from the surrounding population, but is unlikely to have

a significant effect on the density of territory-holding individuals in adjoining

areas.

Page 33




December 2009

In a similar manner as for foxes, it is unlikely that hedgehogs would exist at

elevated densities beyond the area of reduced badger density, given that

badger predation pressure would, at that point, have returned to ‘natural’

levels. Again, any effects resulting from elevated hedgehog numbers

would also not be expected to extend far beyond the IAPA boundaries.

Thus, a conservative estimate would limit the extent of any of the possible

ecological changes described in Section 5 and for each of the receptors

below, to within approximately 2 km of the eventual IAPA boundary.

Duration:

As explained in Section 6.2, it is anticipated that the duration of any

possible ecological changes would be between approximately 10-15 and 25

years, although given the size of the IAPA and the possible impediments to

re-colonisation by badgers, in practice, the upper end of this estimate would

be more likely. It is near certain that any effects would last longer than 10

years and, similarly, probable that (unless the BRO extended for more than

5 years) recovery would be achieved within approximately 25 years.

Reversibility:

It is anticipated that the majority of effects from the BRO would be fully

reversible and that the receptors would recover within approximately 10 –

20 years (as described above and detailed in Section 6.2). However, it is

possible that certain species of ground nesting birds (e.g. lapwing and

curlew) are currently at such low densities that even a small increase in

predation pressure could cause localised extinctions, which are likely to be

permanent.

Timing and frequency:

At present, the timetable for the BRO is to be decided, but may begin in

2010. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that trapping and

shooting of badgers will take place from June until November on an annual

basis, similar to the procedure during the RBCT.

However, the ecological changes that may arise as a result of badger

removal would not be expected to relate to the specifics of the trapping

programme. It is likely that, if they manifest at all, increases in breeding

success, recruitment and longevity of foxes and hedgehogs, for example,

or increases in ground nesting bird mortality rates or reductions in breeding

success, would begin incrementally, season-by-season.

7.2 Key Ecological Receptors

7.2.1 Designated sites

Sites of European importance

Potential impacts on these sites are reported in the HDA Screening Report.

Page 34




December 2009

Other designated sites

Aberarth – Carreg Wylan SSSI; Cardigan Island Wildlife Trust

Reserve and SSSI; and Newport Cliffs SSSI

These three sites are designated, at least in part, on the basis of their use

by roosting and nesting choughs and the value of their maritime, coastal

and cliff-top vegetation. The possible impacts of the BRO on choughs and

sensitive coastal plant communities are discussed in detail below. The

likelihood of significant impacts on these sites remains uncertain. It is near

certain, were they to occur, that the balance of any impacts would be

adverse rather than beneficial. However, whether any impacts would

occur, and what the magnitude and significance of these would be remains

uncertain.

Cemaes Head Wildlife Trust Reserve and SSSI

As with the sites above, the likelihood of significant impacts on this site

remains uncertain. The possible impacts of the BRO on choughs and other

ground nesting birds are discussed in detail below.

Teifi Marshes Wildlife Trust Reserve (part of Afon Teifi SSSI); Cwm

Bach (Sychpant) SSSI; Gallt Lanerch – Coed Gelli-Deg SSSI

(including Llanerch Alder Carr Wildlife Trust Reserve); Gweunydd

Blaencleddau SSSI; Pengelli Forest and Pant-Teg Wood NNR, SSSI

and Wildlife Trust Reserve

Once again, the likelihood of significant impacts on some of the bird species

these sites support is uncertain. The possible impacts of the BRO on ground

nesting birds are discussed in detail below.

Caeau Crug Bychan, Ty Gwyn A Lleyn Ysgaw SSSI

As with the sites above, the likelihood of significant impacts on some of the

bird species this site supports / attracts is uncertain. The possible impacts of

the BRO on chough and other ground nesting birds are discussed in detail

below.

7.2.2 Species

Chough

Potential impacts

The likely effect of the BRO on chough populations is uncertain. Choughs

generally nest on cliffs and occasionally in buildings, and within the IAPA

the vast majority of choughs nest on the coastal cliffs. As such, it is not

thought that there would be a significant risk of predation of eggs and

chicks by mammalian predators including badger and foxes. No increase in

predation risk is therefore anticipated as a result of the BRO.

However, it has been shown that chough populations in the UK rely heavily

on the availability of particular habitats to provide good quality foraging

resources (Whitehead et al. 2005; Bignal et al. 1996). The optimal foraging

habitat for choughs is short-sward permanent grassland (a sward height of

Page 35




December 2009

2-4cm) and the interface between this and bare soil or rock (Whitehead et

al. 2005). The maintenance of this short-sward grassland by both sheep

and rabbits has been shown to be a key factor in the success of this

species (McCanch 2000).

It is considered likely that, in many locations, the coastal and cliff-top

grasslands within the zone of influence that are important to the resident

chough, are maintained, at least in part, by rabbit grazing (ponies are also

important in several areas). A substantial decrease in the rabbit population

within the coastal and upland parts of the IAPA could alter the sward

height, vegetation structure and species composition of the grassland areas

the chough currently rely on, and thus could have a significant adverse

impact on the resident chough population.

Depending upon the magnitude and extent of any change in vegetation,

this could lead to a localised reduction in the rate of increase in the chough

population, or even a localised decline. The likelihood of an effect on

rabbits as a result of badger removal is discussed in detail below; whilst it

appears unlikely that the BRO would result in changes substantial enough

to affect grazing pressure and hence drive vegetation change, it is

conceivable (but still unlikely) that the effects of the BRO could exacerbate

a decline in rabbit numbers caused by a localised disease outbreak.

The situation is potentially complicated by a possible overlap in diet

between choughs and badgers. For example, both species eat bees

(Kerbiriou and Julliard 2007). In most cases their invertebrate prey would

be considered as super-abundant and therefore not a limiting factor for

populations of predators, particularly those existing at such low densities as

chough. However, certain bee species can also occur at relatively low

densities. By removing badgers, it is conceivable that the choughs may

benefit, to some degree, from a reduction in competition; however, bees do

not form major part of the diet, so this is unlikely to to be a significant

component except possibly at a very local and focussed temporal scale.

On balance, the possible effects of badger removal on choughs in and

around the IAPA remain speculative at best. It is probable that, were they to

occur, any impacts would be adverse rather than beneficial. However,

whether there would be any impacts, and what the magnitude and

significance of these would be remains uncertain. This is discussed in

more detail in the HDA Screening Report.

Options for mitigation and compensation

Mitigation

If habitat monitoring was to reveal an adverse change in sward height,

vegetation structure and/or species composition of the grassland areas the

chough currently rely on, consideration would need to be given to beginning

or intensifying grazing by livestock in these areas, to help balance any

reduction in rabbit grazing, along with the possible introduction of mowing

regimes. This would be implemented through the existing grassland

management regimes being operated for the benefit of choughs by the

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, CCW and the National Trust

Page 36




December 2009

(see the HDA Screening Report for details). A potential impact on choughs

has also been identified as an issue for two of the Natura 2000 sites in the

general vicinity of the IAPA. This adds to the importance of ensuring that

the existing framework of grassland management and monitoring will be

sufficient to allow remedial action to be taken should any adverse changes

in the important feeding areas for choughs be detected.

Whilst initial meetings with the relevant stakeholders and consultees

suggested that additional contingency measures may need to be developed

specifically as a result of the BRO, it was decided following subsequent

meetings and discussions that the varied management plans already in

place to benefit choughs in this part of the country (for example, PCNPA’s

Coastal Slopes Initiative, agri-environment initiatives such as Tir Gofal,

CCW’s SSSI management objectives for coastal grassland, the National

Trust’s coastal land management practices, the Wildlife Trust of West

Wales’s Chough Conservation Strategy, and the Chough Species Action

Plan in the Pembrokeshire BAP) will all provide sufficient reactive

management to mitigate any adverse impacts on chough habitat over the

coming years, whether these are due to the BRO or more natural reasons

(such as myxomatosis).

Compensation

Given that a possible impact pathway has been highlighted that could result

in a significant impact on a receptor of national importance, consideration

could be given to increasing the resources/funding for chough conservation

projects in the wider area. This would have the aim of boosting further the

chough population in this part of Wales, to off-set, in a pro-active rather

than reactive manner, any possible adverse effects of the BRO.

Ground Nesting Bird Assemblage

Potential impacts

The potential impacts of the BRO on the ground nesting bird assemblage

identified in Section 5 are uncertain. Badgers are known to predate birds,

especially nests, and it is logical therefore that this predation pressure will

be significantly reduced following the removal of badgers. However, other

predators such as foxes, hedgehogs, small mustelids and some species of

bird also predate the nests of ground nesting birds, and such species may

benefit from a reduction in competition following a BRO. If following the

removal of badgers it is only the surplus that are taken by other predators,

then the overall level of predation on ground nesting birds could be

expected to remain constant. However, as a result of mechanisms such as

meso-predator release (as explained in Section 4.2.2.), there is a possibility

that predators that compete with the badger, particularly foxes and

hedgehogs, could increase in abundance substantially, thereby exerting a

greater overall predation pressure on ground nesting birds.

Predation is just one of the mechanisms by which bird populations are

limited and/or regulated. For many species of bird it is the over winter

mortality that exerts the greatest limiting influence. In order for predation to

significantly affect bird populations it must be additive and not

Page 37




December 2009

compensatory i.e. that predation must remove more birds than were going

to die anyway. Large post-breeding, pre-winter populations of birds have

been referred to as “the doomed surplus” (Errington 1946; Banks 1999), as

only a finite number are going to survive the winter. Whether the rest die of

starvation or are predated is immaterial. In certain circumstances predation

can hold a population below a critical threshold and in these circumstances

variations in predation pressure may have serious consequences,

especially with rare or highly vulnerable species e.g. lapwing in the IAPA.

There are many other factors that limit bird populations, not least the effect

of land use. Modern farming techniques have been identified as the main

cause of declining farmland birds (Newton 2004), and it is largely accepted

that land use and weather are likely to be two of the most important

variables that determine the success or otherwise of terrestrial bird

populations. However, predation can also be the most significant factor,

particularly at the local scale (e.g. for some breeding waders).

The effects of badger removal were investigated during the RBCT, although

the results of this study were indeterminate (Hounsome 2005); this

evidence is reviewed in detail in Section 5. There was a significant effect on

meadow pipits, but this was manifested in falling numbers in the control

areas (where no badgers were culled) and relatively constant numbers in

the culling areas.

The species that make up the Key Ecological Receptor, i.e. the ground

nesting bird assemblage, have been selected on the basis of their inherent

vulnerability to mammalian predation, as well as their conservation status

within the UK and/or Wales. As such, many of these species are

uncommon within the zone of influence, and any increase in predation

pressure may have a substantial effect on their status at a county level and

thus a significant impact. Equally, some species may experience a

lessening in predation pressure following the removal of badgers, thereby

producing a beneficial impact. The evidence on which to base such an

impact assessment is incomplete, and it is therefore necessary to conclude

that (a) any impacts may be adverse or beneficial, or a combination of both;

(b) the magnitude of these impacts is unknown; and (c) the likelihood of any

impact occurring is uncertain.

The species most likely to be at risk from an increase in predation pressure

are those whose populations are also most likely to fluctuate and/or decline

as a result of other factors, over the life of the project. From the

assemblage in question, the most vulnerable are likely to be meadow and

tree pipit, cuckoo, curlew, lapwing and grey partridge. It is probable that if

adverse impacts on ground nesting birds do manifest, that these species

would be amongst the most likely to be affected significantly.


Mitigation

Given the high degree of uncertainty with regard to impacts on ground

nesting birds, it is difficult to identify targeted options for mitigation at this

stage. If the monitoring programme set out in Section 8 detected changes

Page 38




December 2009

in the abundance of one or more ground nesting bird species, when

compared to an previously established pre-cull baseline (see section 8.2), it

would be appropriate to review specific options to boost the breeding

success of that species, in an attempt to accelerate the recovery of its local

population. In rare circumstances it may be necessary to exclude or control

predators in the vicinity of rare breeding bird nests e.g. lapwing.

Compensation

As with chough, above, given that a possible impact pathway exists,

consideration could be given to increasing the funding for local schemes to

promote environmentally sensitive agricultural practices and other

conservation projects that would benefit ground nesting birds, as pro-active

compensation to off-set any possible impacts.

Brown Hare

Although there is some evidence for badgers predating hares it is not

thought that it is a common occurrence (Neal and Cheeseman, 1996), and

as a consequence it is highly unlikely that badgers limit hare populations.

Hares are however regularly predated by foxes (Reynolds and Tapper,

1995) and there is some evidence that foxes could influence their

distribution and abundance (Vaughan et al., 2003; Lindstrom et al., 1994).

Surveys carried out during the RBCT did not detect any effects on rabbit or

hare populations in response to badger culling (Trewby 2009), despite the

confirmed increase in fox densities. However, this does not exclude the

possibility of consequences for their populations in different areas of the

country, where the faunal community structure is different. Hence for

example, if fox numbers were to increase in response to badger removal in

an area with relatively low rabbit abundance, then the consequences for the

hare population may be more significant.

There is some theoretical evidence to suggest a possible adverse impact of

badger culling on hares, through increased predation from an elevated fox

population. However, the evidence from the RBCT suggests that this either

did not happen or did so at a level that was undetectable by the monitoring

protocols employed. It is near certain that the BRO would not benefit the

hare population within the IAPA. It is suggested, therefore, that any impact

is likely to be adverse, although the likelihood of an impact is uncertain and

its magnitude and significance is impossible to predict on the basis of the

existing evidence.


It is likely that hares benefit from general initiatives that seek to increase

habitat and species diversity in farmland ecosystems. The options for

compensation suggested above for ground nesting birds in terms of

increased funding for relevant conservation initiatives are, broadly, also

likely to be relevant for this species.

Page 39




December 2009

Hedgehog

Badgers are an important predator of hedgehogs but they also prey on a

similar range of invertebrates. As such the badger is both a predator and

competitor of the hedgehog. The effects of a BRO on hedgehog abundance

and distribution were investigated during the RBCT (Young 2006). There

was a 100% increase in the abundance of hedgehogs in areas where

badgers had been removed, although this increase was restricted to

amenity grassland within villages. By contrast, hedgehog numbers showed

a slight decline in areas with no badger culling (this is reviewed in Section

5).

Although there are anecdotal records of foxes eating hedgehogs there is

very little evidence to suggest that this would significantly affect hedgehog

populations, indeed the 100% increase in hedgehog numbers during the

RBCT coincided with an approximate 50% increase in fox numbers.

It is probable, therefore, that the BRO will have a significant beneficial

impact on the hedgehog population within the IAPA. It is also probable that

this effect will be greatest around areas of human habitation.

Polecat

Potential impacts

The possible consequences of badger removal and an increase in fox

numbers is discussed with regard to small mustelid predators in Section 5.

On balance, it is considered probable, as a result of the greater likelihood of

competition and intra-guild predation, that there would be some impacts on

polecat populations, and that these would be adverse rather than

beneficial. However, the magnitude and significance of any impacts is

entirely uncertain.


As with brown hares, it is likely that polecats benefit from general initiatives

that seek to increase habitat and species diversity in farmland ecosystems.

The options for compensation suggested above for ground nesting birds in

terms of increased funding for relevant conservation initiatives are, broadly,

also likely to be relevant for this species.

7.3 Other Ecological Receptors

Rabbit

Potential impacts

During the RBCT fox numbers were shown to increase by an average of

50% and it is assumed that this will have exerted an extra predation

pressure on lagomorphs including rabbits. However, surveys undertaken

as part of the RBCT did not detect any significant effects on rabbits; this is

discussed in more detail in Section 5. There remains a possibility that an

Page 40




December 2009

increase in fox abundance as a result of the BRO may decrease the

population of rabbits across all or parts of the IAPA.

Conversely however, it has been speculated that the removal of badgers

provides rabbits with access to empty badger setts which they use for

breeding in locations from which they had previously been excluded. In

addition, badgers are known to predate rabbits, especially young kits. It is

possible, therefore, that rabbits may benefit from a badger cull and even in

the face of increased predation pressure from a larger fox population, may

increase in abundance.

Notwithstanding the potential effects of the BRO on the rabbit population, it

is likely that rabbit numbers are more heavily influenced by changes in land

use and management, agricultural practices, and diseases such as

myxomatosis and rabbit viral haemorrhagic disease (RVHD). There are

occasional outbreaks of both diseases within Pembrokeshire, although

predicting such events is very difficult and beyond the scope of this

assessment.

It is very difficult to predict the likely impacts of the BRO on rabbit

populations within the IAPA, over the lifetime of the project. On balance, it

is probable that any impacts on rabbits would be adverse rather than

beneficial but, given all the other factors that might affect rabbit numbers, it

is unlikely that these impacts would be significant, at least across the area

as a whole.

As identified above, a possible impact pathway has been highlighted

involving choughs, in the event that elevated fox populations do depress

rabbit numbers in the coastal zone and thus bring about a decrease in

rabbit grazing pressure on coastal and cliff-top grasslands. It is likely that

most of the factors discussed above with regard to possible impacts on

rabbit populations would apply to these parts of the IAPA, although any

potential benefit rabbits might derive from abandoned badger setts would

be less relevant here: this would have more of an effect in low-lying,

intensively managed farmland, where the availability of secure, dry warren

sites might be limiting.

Fox

Potential impacts

Evidence for the likely consequences of badger removal on fox populations

is discussed in Section 5. It is considered likely that a similar set of

ecological relationships between foxes and badgers exists within the IAPA

as was the case in those parts of the RBCT where fox populations were

studied.

It is therefore considered probable that there would be an increase in fox

density across at least part of the IAPA. It is also probable that such an

increase would be substantial (perhaps in the order of 50% or more).

Page 41




December 2009

7.4 Summary of impacts on Ecological Receptors

Table 7.1: Impacts on Ecological Receptors.

Ecological

Receptor

Associated Species /

Habitats

Value Confirmed Effect

Key receptors

European

designated

sites

Reported in the

HDA Screening

Report

Chough International

value

Taking into account contingency

mitigation triggered by effective

monitoring and/or existing

reactive chough management

strategies, no effect on

qualifying features

Other

designated

sites

Chough; coastal, maritime

and cliff-top plant

communities; ground

nesting birds; polecat;

brown hare

UK value Likelihood, magnitude and

significance of adverse impacts

remain uncertain (although, for

some sites, impacts are only

possible on relatively minor

elements of site assemblages).

Effective mitigation is available

for choughs.

Chough Cliffs; semi-improved and

unimproved grassland

National

value

Likelihood, magnitude and


remain uncertain, but effective

mitigation is available, triggered

by monitoring

Ground nesting

bird

assemblage

Merlin, lapwing, skylark,

song thrush, curlew,

cuckoo, nightjar, woodlark,

wood warbler, grasshopper

warbler, reed bunting,

lapwing, grey partridge and

tree pipit. Unimproved and

semi-improved grassland;

arable land; marshes;

woodland

County

value

(potentially

national, if

lapwing

present)


significance of any impacts

remain uncertain

Monitoring proposed

Some options for mitigation and

compensation

Brown Hare Agricultural land, especially

rough pasture abutting

arable land. Also lowland

heathland; moorland; open

woodland and parkland, in

close proximity to

agricultural land

Regional

value



remain uncertain

Hedgehog Semi-improved and

improved grassland; open

woodlands; hedgerows;

County

value

Probable significant beneficial

effect

Page 42




December 2009

Ecological Associated Species / Value Confirmed Effect

Receptor Habitats

parks and gardens

Polecat Wide variety of farmland

habitats

County

value



remain uncertain

Other

receptors

Rabbit Wide variety of farmland

habitats; agricultural and

coastal grasslands

Negligible

value


significance of any impacts

remain uncertain

Fox Wide variety of farmland

and other habitats

Negligible

value

Probable significant beneficial

effect

Page 43




December 2009

8 Recommendations for Monitoring

8.1 Rationale

Wherever possible, the impact assessment process should ensure that all

potentially significant impacts on valued ecological receptors are identified

and characterised as fully and quantitatively as possible, and that the

significance of these impacts is assessed at the appropriate level of

importance. An important part of this process is also to assess the likelihood

of the impact occurring as predicted. Any relevant mitigation measures

should then be explained and the residual impacts, if any, should be

described and, again, quantified wherever possible.

As a result of the paucity of relevant data and comparable studies, the

assessment presented here includes a number of potential impacts where

an assessment of likelihood is not possible with any degree of certainty, and

where the magnitude and significance of these potential impacts is similarly

unclear. In light of this uncertainty and the stage of development of the BRO

proposals, ‘options’ for mitigation and compensation are proposed, rather

than specific undertakings. It has also not been possible to assess the likely

effectiveness of these mitigation and compensation options, in the context

of the impacts they would need to address.

It is suggested that a responsible approach to these uncertainties would be

to implement a comprehensive monitoring scheme, to assess the effects of

the BRO on the most vulnerable and valuable of the Key Ecological

Receptors. This would give the Welsh Assembly Government the ability to

detect, as early as possible, any significant changes in the status of the

receptors, and thus allow the early implementation of the selected mitigation

and compensation measures. A comprehensive approach to monitoring,

also encompassing the most important of the ‘other’ ecological receptors,

would also help inform future assessments, should the IAPA be extended or

a similar approach be proposed elsewhere in Wales.

8.2 Monitoring proposals

Chough and chough foraging habitat

Given the important and vulnerable nature of this receptor, the overriding

aim of any monitoring must be to ensure that adverse impacts on the

resident choughs are detected as rapidly as possible, to help target

remedial mitigation.

Monitoring of chough numbers and breeding success is currently carried out

annually by the Pembrokeshire Chough Study Group (PCSG), and is likely

to continue for the foreseeable future. The availability of these data will aid

the interpretation of the monitoring of habitat quality. Following a site visit

and detailed discussions with representatives from CCW, the National Park

Authority and PCSG it was agreed that, provided there are sufficient

resources available to ensure that existing chough management and

monitoring presently being carried out along this stretch of coastline can

continue, this would be sufficient to ensure that any changes as a result of

Page 44




December 2009

the proposed cull would be detected and reacted to by organisations

already working on chough conservation in the area (see the HDA

Screening Report for details).

Ground nesting birds

Although the effects of badger removal on ground nesting species were

investigated during the RBCT, the results were inconclusive. As a result, the

impact assessment reported in Section 7 contains a substantial amount of

uncertainty. The aims of this part of the monitoring scheme would be

twofold:

(a) To detect any adverse changes in the abundance, species composition

and distribution of ground nesting birds that may arise as an indirect

consequence of the BRO, and hence ‘trigger’ (and guide the choice of)

mitigation and compensation options. This would also aid the Welsh

Assembly Government in the discharge of their responsibilities with

regard to national and local BAP priorities and Section 42 species, in

the context of this project.

(b) To guide future impact assessments and decision making with regard

to any expansion of the IAPA or new BRO elsewhere in Wales.

It is recommended that a ground nesting bird monitoring programme is

carried out in the spring of 2010 to establish a precise pre-BRO abundance

estimate of key ground nesting species. It is felt that this pre-cull estimate is

crucial if significant effects of badger culling are to be detected. The

monitoring will then continue for the duration of the BRO (and thereafter, if

an effect is detected). The scheme should be designed to maximise

precision in estimates and not necessarily accuracy, as detecting significant

changes in abundance is the priority. However, it would also be appropriate

to review the proposed methodology in the context of other current or recent

surveys elsewhere in the UK, to ensure that it is possible to take advantage

of contextual data wherever appropriate.

For common species an intensive version of the British Trust for

Ornithology’s (BTO) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) should be considered. This

scheme is specifically designed to detect changes in populations and the

data collected would have the added advantage of being directly

comparable to Wales and/or the UK as a whole. The number of sample

squares and distribution would have to be decided after preliminary pilot

data had been used in a power analysis.

For rarer species e.g. lapwing and curlew, it is not felt that a BBS approach

will suffice, and a more intensive survey should be conducted which

identifies nest sites for these species and monitors nest success. Such

detailed monitoring of rare birds will aid in the establishment and execution

of any necessary remedial measures, such as exclusion and/or lethal

control of predators. Ideally, the programme should be conducted both

within and outside the IAPA to allow significant changes to be detected. It is

recommended that the monitoring programme should attempt to collect data

on all of the species identified as components of the Key Ecological

Receptor, but with a focus on meadow and tree pipit, cuckoo, curlew,

lapwing and grey partridge.

Page 45




December 2009

Brown hare

The rationale for monitoring hares is very similar to that for monitoring

ground nesting birds, although the mitigation measures that might be

‘triggered’ as a result would be less specific. It is recommended that a

monitoring programme for hares is implemented and continues for the

duration of the BRO (and thereafter, if an effect is detected). As with the

bird monitoring, the programme should be designed to maximise precision

in estimates and not necessarily accuracy, as detecting significant changes

in abundance is the priority and, again, it would also be appropriate to

review the proposed methodology in the context of other current or recent

surveys elsewhere in the UK, to ensure that it is possible to take advantage

of contextual data wherever appropriate. Ideally such a programme should

be conducted both within and outside the IAPA to allow significant changes

to be detected.

Polecat

The rationale for monitoring polecats is the same for monitoring hares.

Whilst the precise monitoring techniques will be different (trapping rather

than a combination of nocturnal spotlight counting and daytime transects),

the principles summarised above for hares would be the same for polecats.

Rabbit

The rationale for monitoring rabbits is different. This is not a species of

nature conservation value and no mitigation or compensation measures

would be ‘triggered’ should an effect be detected. However, rabbits have

been identified as a species of some importance as part of the ecological

changes that might manifest as a consequence of badger removal. They

may be affected by the potential increase in the abundance of foxes and

may, in turn, affect other mammalian predators. In this particular case, they

may play a crucial role in helping to facilitate the current increase in chough

populations. It is therefore recommended that rabbit populations are

monitored across a range of habitat types within and outside the IAPA, in

particular in the vicinity of the grassland areas known to be of value to

choughs (surveillance of rabbit numbers is recommended in the

management plans of two of the nearby SPAs for which chough are

important species). The principles of rabbit monitoring should follow those

set out for hares, above.

It is considered that the results of this monitoring programme will be of

particular importance in helping to interpret the results of some of the other

monitoring initiatives detailed above, and in future impact assessments and

decision making should the IAPA be extended or new BROs be proposed.

Fox

The rationale for monitoring foxes is much the same as for rabbits. An

investigation into the ecological consequences of removing badgers, carried

out during the RBCT, showed significant increases in fox abundance. It is

possible, therefore, that a similar effect may be observed during badger

culling in the IAPA. Given that many of the potential impacts described in

Section 7 rely on a change in predation pressure resulting from the removal

Page 46




December 2009

of badgers and a subsequent increase in foxes, it is considered important to

investigate whether this increase in foxes actually happens. A fox

monitoring programme is therefore recommended, adopting the same

principles as summarised above for rabbits.

As with rabbit monitoring, it is considered that the results of this fox

monitoring programme will be of particular importance in helping to interpret

the results of some of the other monitoring initiatives detailed above, and in

future impact assessments and decision making.

Page 47




December 2009

9 Conclusions and Consequences for Decision-

Making

A number of species have been identified that: (a) are present within the

IAPA, (b) are of nature conservation importance, and (c) could be affected

indirectly by the BRO. In addition, a number of sites of nature conservation

value have been identified within and close to the IAPA that have been

designated, at least in part because of the populations of these species that

they support.

Arguably the most important of these species is the chough, and the

sensitive coastal and maritime grasslands on which it depends; these clifftop

habitats are not only important to the resident choughs, but the plant

communities are also of intrinsic nature conservation value. The chough

population within and close to the IAPA is of national importance and the

designated sites in question are valuable at a UK scale. It is probable that

fox numbers will increase as a consequence of badger removal, and it is

conceivable that this will lead to a decline in rabbits, at least in some areas.

These sensitive cliff-top habitats are maintained, at least in part, by rabbit

grazing. Thus, if rabbit densities do decline in the coastal zone (possibly in

combination with a disease outbreak), there could be adverse impacts on

the valuable habitats, the chough, and the sites that support them.

It is thus clearly important that the monitoring of chough foraging habitat

takes place in order to assess the extent to which impacts on rabbits might

be having an effect. Following discussion with the relevant consultees it

was agreed that such monitoring is already being carried out as part of

existing widespread land management agreements, and that this would be

sufficient to ensure that remedial action would be implemented should

adverse effects on habitat quality arise from the BRO (see the HDA

Screening Report).

Potential impacts have also been identified with regard to an assemblage of

ground nesting birds, which could suffer increased predation from an

elevated fox population. Once again, there are also several important sites

that mention some of these birds in their designation details although, in

each case, these sites’ primary reasons for designation relate to a different

set of habitats and species (that would not be affected by the BRO). In its

own right, the assemblage of birds within the IAPA is of county importance.

As with the possible impacts on choughs, the likelihood of any impacts on

ground nesting birds is uncertain. However, unlike the situation with

choughs sufficient monitoring is not currently being undertaken for these

species, so it is recommended that an annual monitoring scheme is put in

place in order to detect any significant changes in the ground nesting bird

population. It is essential that any monitoring scheme is carried out before

the BRO goes ahead in order to establish a pre-BRO baseline, with which

to compare data from subsequent years.

It has also been identified that the BRO could have an adverse effect on

hares and polecats, the populations of which are, again, of nature

Page 48




December 2009

conservation importance (at a regional and county level respectively) but,

once again, any impacts are uncertain.

It is probable that the BRO will generate a significant beneficial impact on

hedgehogs which, although they might possibly add to the predation

pressure on ground nesting birds, are a species of intrinsic nature

conservation value in their own right.

Many of the results of this impact assessment are unavoidably

inconclusive. It is recommended that a responsible approach to these

uncertainties would be to implement a scheme to monitor the effects of the

BRO on the most vulnerable and valuable of the species and sites that

might be affected. This would provide the opportunity to detect, as early as

possible, any significant changes in their status and thus allow the early

implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. A comprehensive

approach to monitoring, also encompassing foxes and rabbits, would also

help inform future assessments, should the IAPA be extended or a similar

approach be proposed elsewhere in Wales.

It is also important to highlight that options do exist to address or off-set

these potential effects. Given that these possible impact pathways have

been identified, consideration could be given to increasing the funding to,

for example, local schemes that promote environmentally sensitive

agricultural practices, and other conservation projects that would benefit

these valuable species, as pro-active compensation to off-set any possible

impacts.

Page 49




December 2009

10 References

Andersen, J. (1955). The food of the Danish badger. Danish Review of Game

Biology, 3: 1-75.

Anderson, R.M. & Trewhella, W. (1985). Population dynamics of the badger

(Meles meles) and the epidemiology of bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium

bovis). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 310, 327-

381.

Baker, P.J. & Harris, S. (2003). A review of the diet of foxes in rural Britain and a

preliminary assessment of their impact as a predator. In: Conservation and

Conflict. Mammals and farming in Britain (Ed. By F Tattersall & W. Manley), pp

120-140. Westbury publishing, Otley, West Yorkshire.

Banks, P.B. (1999). Predation by introduced foxes on the native bush rat in

Australia: do foxes take the doomed surplus? Journal of Applied Ecology 36:

1063 – 1071.

Battersby, J. (Ed) & Tracking Mammals Partnership. (2005). UK Mammals:

Species Status and Population Trends. First Report by the Tracking Mammals

Partnership. JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership, Peterborough.

Berry, S.E., Devonald, K.J.S., James, W., Green, J & Rogers, A. 2008.

Pembrokeshire Bird Report.

Bignal, E.M., McCracken, D.I., Stillman, R.A. & Ovenden, G.N. Behavior of

nesting choughs in the Scottish Hebrides. Journal of Field Ornithology 67: (1) 25-

43.

Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan (1994). HMSO, London.

Butler, D. (2003). Trials of the empty nesters. Daily Telegraph 8th February.

Carmarthenshire Biodiversity Action Plan:

http://www.carmarthenshirebiodiversity.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&vi

ew=article&id=60&Itemid=33

Ceredigion Biodiversity Action Plan:

http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/utilities/action/act_download.cfm?mediaid=3750

Cheeseman, C.L., Mallinson, P.J., Ryan, J. & Wilesmith, J.W. (1993)

Recolonisation by badgers in Gloucestershire. In: The badger (ed. T.J. Hayden),

pp. 78-93. Dublin Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

Conway, G., Wotton, S., Henderson, I., Langston, R., Drewitt, A. and Currie, F.

(2007) The status and distribution of European Nightjars Caprimulgus europaeus

in the UK in 2004. Bird Study. 54: 98 – 111.

Davis, S. E., Newson, S. E. & Noble, D. G. (2007). The production of population

trends for UK mammals using BBS mammal data: 1995-2005 update. BTO

Research Report No: 462

Page 50

Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly Government

Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009

Defra (2002). Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Section 74: List of

Habitats and Species of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biological

Diversity in England.

Defra (2007) The Ecological Consequences of Removing Badgers from an

Ecosystem. Research project final report.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=ZF0531_6288_FRP.doc

Donadio, E. & Buskirk, S. W. (2006) Diet, morphology, and interspecific killing in

Carnivora. American Naturalist 167, 524-536.

Doncaster, C.P. (1992) Testing the role of intraguild predation in regulating

hedgehog populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 249, 113-

117.

Doncaster, C.P. (1994) Factors regulating local variations in abundance: field

tests on hedgehogs. Oikos, 69, 182-192.

Errington, P.L. (1946) Predation and vertebrate populations. Quarterly Review of

Biology, 21, 144–177.

EU Council Directive (79/409/EEC), on the conservation of wild birds.

EU Council Directive (92/43/EEC), on the conservation of natural habitats and of

wild fauna and flora.

Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. & Chapman, R.A. (1993) The New Atlas of Breeding

Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. London: Poyser.

Hailey, A. & Goutner, V. (2002). Changes in the Alyki Kitrous wetland in northern

Greece: 1990- 1999, and future prospects. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11:

357-377.

Harris, S., Cresswell, W., & Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying badgers. Mammal

Society Occasional Publication No.9. Mammal Society, London.

Hounsome, T.D. 2005 The effects of badgers (Meles meles) and livestock on

ground nesting birds. Unpublished PhD. Thesis. University of Aberdeen.

Hounsome, T.D. & Delahay, R.J. (2005). Birds in the diet of the Eurasian badger

(Meles meles): a review and meta-analysis. Mammal Review 35: 199 – 209.

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for

ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006).

http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html.

Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological

Assessment. E & FN Spon. London.

Jackson, D.B, Fuller, R.J. & Campbell, S.T. (2004). Long-term population

changes among breeding shorebirds in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, in relation

to introduced hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Biological Conservation 117:

(2) 151 – 166.

JNCC (1993). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A Technique for

Environmental Audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Page 51



JNCC (2007). UK BAP Website: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/

Kerbiriou, C. & Julliard, R. (2007). Demographic consequences of prey

availability and diet of Red-billed Choughs Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax: Capsule

Variation in prey availability appears to influence Chough fledging success and

juvenile survival. Bird Study, 54: (3) 296 – 306.

Lindström, E.R., Andrén, H., Angelstam, P., Cederlund, G. Hörnfeldt, B.,

Jäderberg, L., Lemnell, P., Martinsson, B., Sköld, K., & Swenson, J.E. (1994)

Disease reveals the predator: sarcoptic mange, red fox predation, and prey

populations. Ecology, 75, 1042-1049.

Lloyd H.G. (1980) The Red Fox. Batsford, London

Macdonald, D.W., Buesching, C.D., Stopka, P., Henderson, J., Ellwood, S.A. &

Baker, S.E. (2004) Encounters between two sympatric carnivores: red foxes

(Vulpes vulpes) and European badgers (Meles meles). Journal of Zoology 263,

385-392.

McCanch, N. (2000). The relationship between Red-Billed Chough Pyrrhocorax

pyrrhocorax (L) breeding populations and grazing pressure on the Calf of Man.

Bird Study, 47(3) 295 – 303.

Meia, J.-S, & Weber, J.-M. (1992) Characteristics and distribution of breeding

dens of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in a mountainous habitat. Z. Saugetierkunde

57: 137-143.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). HMSO, London.

Neal, E. & Cheeseman, C. (1996). Badgers. Poyser, London.

Newton, I. (2004). The recent declines of farmland bird populations in Britain: an

appraisal of causal factors and conservation actions. Ibis 146: (4) 579 – 600.

Oro, D., Pradel, R., & Lebreton, J. D. (1999). Food availability and nest predation

influence life history traits in Audouin's gull, Larus audouinii. Oecologia, 118:

438-445.

Pech, R.P., Sinclair, A.R.E., Newsome, A.E. & Catling, P.C. (1992) Limits to

predator regulation of rabbits in Australia: evidence from predator-removal

experiments. Oecologia, 89, 102-112.

Pembrokeshire Biodiversity Action Plan. http://www.biodiversitypembrokeshire.

org.uk/publications/LBAP%20%28part%201%29.pdf

Polis, G.A., Myers, C.A. & Holt, R.D. (1989) The ecology and evolution of

intraguild predation: potential competitors that each other. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics, 20, 297-330.

Rebecca, G.W. & Bainbridge, I.P. (1998). The breeding status of Merlin Falco

columbarius in Britain in 1993 – 1994. Bird Study. 45: 172 – 187.

Reeve, N. (1994) Hedgehogs. T & A.D. Poyser Ltd, London, UK.

Reynolds, J.C. & Aebischer N.J. (1991) Comparison and quantification of

carnivore diet by faecal analysis: a critique, with recommendations based on a

study of the fox Vulpes vulpes. Mammal Review 21, 97-122.

Page 52



Reynolds, J.C. & Tapper, S.C. (1995) Predation by foxes Vulpes vulpes on

brown hares Lepus europaeus in central southern England, and its potential

impact on annual population growth. Wildlife Biology 1, 145-158.

Reynolds, J.C., Goddard, H.N. & Brockless, M.H. (1993). The impact of local fox

(Vulpes vulpes) removal on fox populations at two sites in southern England.

Gibier Faune Sauvage. 10: 319-334

Stace, C. (1997). New Flora of the British Isles Second Edition. Cambridge

University Press.

The Badgers Act (1992). HMSO, London.

The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations (1994). HMSO, London.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). HMSO, London.

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations

(1999) and subsequent amendments. HMSO, London.

Trewby, I.D. (2009) The effects of competition by badgers on foxes and their

prey: an experimental investigation. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of

Aberdeen. Aberdeen.

Trewby, I.D., Wilson, G.J., Delahay, R.J., Walker, N., Young, R., Davison, J.,

Cheeseman, C., Robertson, P.A., Gorman, M.L. & McDonald, R.A. (2008)

Experimental Evidence of Competitive Release in Sympatric Carnivores. Biology

Letters 4, 170-172.

Trout, R.C., Langton, S., Smith, G.C., & Haines-Young, R.H. (2000) Factors

affecting the abundance of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in England and

Wales. Journal of Zoology, 252, 227-238.

UK Biodiversity Steering Group (1995). Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group

Report. Volume 2: Action Plans. HMSO, London.

Tuyttens, F.A.M., Macdonald, D.W., Rogers, L.M., Cheeseman, C.L. & Roddam,

A.W. (2000a) Comparative study on the consequences of culling badgers (Meles

meles) on biometrics, population dynamics and movement. Journal of Animal

Ecology 69, 587-580.

Vaughan, N., Lucas, E., Harris, S. & White, P.C.L. (2003) Habitat associations of

European hares Lepus europaeus in England and Wales: implications for

farmland management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 163-175.

Webbon, C.C., Baker, P.J., Cole, N. & Harris, S. (2006) Macroscopic prey

remains in the winter diet of foxes Vulpes vulpes in rural Britain. Mammal

Review, 36, 85-97.

Weber, D. (1982). Fox den sites and the patterns of their use. Comparative

immunology, microbiology and infectious diseases. 5: 271-275

Welsh Assembly Government (2009). Bovine TB Eradication Activity Tender

Specification (Contract No 246/2008/09, Version 1.1.).

Page 53



Whitehead, S., Johnstone, I. & Wilson, J. (2005). Choughs Pyrrhocorax

pyrrhocorax breeding in Wales select foraging habitat at different spatial scales.

Bird Study 52: 193 – 203.

Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) and subsequent amendments. HMSO, London.

Wilson, A.M., Vickery, J.A. & Browne, S.J. (2001). Numbers and distribution of

Northern Lapwings Vanellus vanellus breeding in England and Wales in 1998.

Bird Study 48: 2 – 17.

Woodroffe, R., Donnelly, C.A., Cox, D. R., Bourne, J.F., Cheeseman, C.L.,

Delahay, R.J., Gettinby, G., Mcinerny, J.P. and Morrison, W.I. 2006. Effects of

culling on badger Meles meles spatial organization: implications for the control of

bovine tuberculosis. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 1 – 10.

Young, R.P., Davison, J., Trewby, I.D., Wilson, G.J., Delahay, R.J. & Doncaster,

C.P. (2006) Abundance of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europeaus) in relation to the

density and distribution of badgers (Meles meles). Journal of Zoology, 269, 349-

356.

Page 54



Figures

Page 55



NTownershipWalesBCarea_region

<all other values>

National Nature Reserve

National Park

Site of Special Scientific Interest

Special Area of Conservation

Wildlife Trust Reserve

Key

Dinas Head

Cemaes Head

Newport

Cardigan

Figure 1:

Maximum extent of IAPA

Designated sites and

WX71314-C1314

Scale

Contract No

Version No - date

NTS

Title Ecological Impacts

of Badger Control

Drawn by

Sheet Modified by - date

CW

CW - 29/10/09

1/1 CW - 11/12/09

A - 07/08/09

0 1.25 2.5 5 Kilometers

Figure 2a: British Trust for Ornithology

Breeding Bird Survey Records

WX71314-C1314

Scale

Contract No

Version No - date

NTS


of Badger Control

Drawn by


CW

1/1 CW - 29/10/09

A - 07/08/09

Key

Kilometres

Tresaith

Cenarth

Dinas

Penygroes

Llandissilio

Puncheston

Figure 2b: West Wales Biodiversity

Information Centre Bird Records

WX71314-C1314

Scale

Contract No

Version No - date

NTS


of Badger Control

Drawn by


CW

1/1 CW - 29/10/09

A - 07/08/09

Key

Kilometres

Tresaith

Cenarth

Dinas

Penygroes

Puncheston

Figure 3:

Information Centre

Mammal Survey Records

West Wales Biodiversity

WX71314-C1314

Scale

Contract No

Version No - date

NTS


of Badger Control

Drawn by


CW

1/1 CW - 29/10/09

A - 07/08/09

Key

Kilometres

Tresaith

Cenarth

Dinas

Penygroes

Puncheston

Page 56



Appendices

Page 57



Appendix 1

Table 1a. European designated sites that occur within the IAPA

Site Name Qualifying feature(s) Approximate

location

Website link to

Management Plan

containing conservation

objectives where

defined

Water courses of plain to montane levels

with the Ranunculion fluitantis and

Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation.

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing

waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea

uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-

Nanojuncetea. Brook lamprey Lampetra

planeri; River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis;

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar; Bullhead

Cottus gobio; Otter Lutra lutra; Floating

water-plantain Luronium natans; Sea

lamprey Petromyzon marinus.

Within area of

focus (flows

through

Cardigan)

http://www.ccw.gov.uk/lan

dscape--

wildlife/protecting-ourlandscape/

special-sitesproject/

aber-to--breconsac-

list/afon-teifi--riverteifi-

sac.aspx

Afon Teifi / River

Teifi SAC

Afonydd

Cleddau /

Cleddau Rivers

SAC

Water courses of plain to montane levels

with the Ranunculion fluitantis and

Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation. Active

raised bogs; Alluvial forests with Alnus

glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-

Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae).

Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri; River

lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis; Sea lamprey

Petromyzon marinus; Bullhead Cottus

gobio; Otter Lutra lutra.

Within area of

focus (south of

Fishguard and

along south east

edge of

Preselis)


dscape--



aber-to--breconsac-

list/afonydd-cleddau--

cleddau-river.aspx

Cardigan Bay /

Bae Ceredigion

SAC

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by

sea water all the time. Reefs. Submerged

or partially submerged sea caves.

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncates;

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus; River

lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis; Grey seal

Halichoerus grypus.

Within area of

focus (estuary at

Cardigan, and

coastline to the

west of

Cardigan)


dscape--



reg-33-plans.aspx

Gweunydd

Blaencleddau

SAC

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica

tetralix; Molinia meadows on calcareous,

peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion

caeruleae); Blanket bogs; Transition mires

and quaking bogs; Alkaline fens. Marsh

fritillary butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas,

Hypodryas) aurinia. Southern damselfly

Coenagrion mercuriale.

Within area of

focus (near

Presli

mountains, near

Crymych)


dscape--



glannau-togweunydd-

saclist/

gweunyddblaencleddau-

sac.aspx

North

Pembrokeshire

Woodlands /

Coedydd

Gogledd Sir

Benfro SAC

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and

Blechnum in the British Isles. Alluvial

forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus

excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae,

Salicion albae). Barbastelle Barbastella

barbastellus.

Within area of

focus (east of

Fishguard, near

Pontfaen)


dscape--



north-to-rhos-saclist/

north-pembswoodlands-

sac.aspx

Page 58



Page 59


Site Name Qualifying feature(s) Approximate

location

Website link to

Management Plan

containing conservation

objectives where

defined

Pembrokeshire

Bat Sites and

Bosherston

Lakes/

Safleoedd

Ystlum Sir

Benfro a

Llynnoedd

Bosherston SAC

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with

benthic vegetation of Chara spp. Greater

horseshoe bat Rhinolophus

ferrumequinum. Lesser horseshoe bat

Rhinolophus hipposideros. Otter Lutra

lutra.

Partly within

area of focus

(Felin

Llwyngwair,

Newport)


dscape--




pembs-bat-sites-andbosherston.

aspx

Preseli SAC Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica

tetralix; European dry heaths;

Depressions on peat substrates of the

Rhynchosporion; Alkaline fens. Southern

damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale; Marsh

fritillary butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas,

Hypodryas) aurinia; Slender green

feather-moss Drepanocladus

(Hamatocaulis) vernicosus.

Within area of

focus (Preseli

mountains - in

centre of area of

focus)


dscape--




preseli-sac.aspx


Table 1b. National designated sites that occur within the IAPA

Site Name Description Grid Reference

Aberarth - Carreg

Wylan SSSI

This site is of special interest for its geological, geomorphological

and biological features. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus and

Atlantic grey seal Halichoerus grypus are of special interest and are

known to feed and breed along the shoreline. The nationally rare

crustacean Pectenogammarus planicrurus, typical of clean shingle

shores occurs here. The sea cliffs provide roosts and nest sites for

nationally important populations of chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

kittiwake Rissa tridactyla and lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus.

Habitats of special interest associated with the cliffs and coastal

slopes include cliff crevice and ledge vegetation, maritime

grassland and coastal heathland supporting a large number of

nationally scarce and regionally rare plant species including rock

sea lavender Limonium britannicum ssp. transcanalis, common

gromwell Lithospermum officinale and smooth cat’s ear

Hypochaeris glabra. The scarce pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly

Bolaria euphrosyne and the regionally rare small blue butterfly

Cupido minimus, are part of an important invertebrate community

present.

Includes Cardigan Island Wildlife Trust Reserve, which contains a

valuable assemblage of breeding seabirds and chough.

Includes Cemaes Head Wildlife Trust Reserve, which includes

extensive areas of close-cropped sward on the west side of the

Head formed through Pony grazing, which is an advantage to the

small Chough population, consisting of one breeding pair on the

reserve and one other just outside the boundary, although the site

is used by many others for foraging. Small numbers of Herring

Gulls, Fulmars and Shags breed, together with a colony of

Cormorants. Other species of note include Peregrines, Kestrel,

Raven, Wheatear, Stonechat and Skylarks, which breed on the

reserve. Grey Seals haul out on inaccessible beaches in the winter

and breed in the late summer, and are sometimes to be seen

swimming offshore, as are schools of Dolphins and Porpoises.

Mammals include Rabbits and Bank Voles.

SN479641 to

SN104455

Afon Cleddau

Dwyreiniol /

Eastern Cleddau

River SSSI

The Eastern Cleddau River is of special interest primarily for

important populations of otter Lutra lutra, bullhead Cottus gobio,

river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis and brook lamprey Lampetra

planeri. It is also of special interest for sea lamprey Petromyzon

marinus; for its range of river habitats including beds of submerged

aquatic plants often dominated by watercrowfoot Ranunculus spp,

the aquatic plant Potamogeton berchtoldii x P. polygonifolius (cf.) as

well as a variety of associated riverside habitats.

SN151317 to

SN060145

Afon Cleddau

Gorllewinol/Weste

rn Cleddau River

SSSI

The Western Cleddau River is of special interest primarily for

important populations of otter Lutra lutra, bullhead Cottus gobio,

river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis and brook lamprey Lampetra

planeri. It is also of special interest for sea lamprey Petromyzon

marinus; for its range of river habitats including beds of submerged

aquatic plants often dominated by watercrowfoot Ranunculus spp.,

as well as a variety of associated riverside habitats.

SM867308 to

SM958153

Page 60



Page 61



Afon Teifi SSSI

(includes Teifi

Marshes Wildlife

Trust Reserve);

part of Coedmor

National Nature

Reserve.

Afon Teifi is of special interest for a range of river types and

associated riverside habitats; flowering plants; bryophytes; otter;

Cetti's warbler; bottlenose dolphin; brown hairstreak;

fish;dragonflies and a variety of other invertebrates as well as both

breeding and wintering bird communities and for geomorphological

features at Cenarth and Cors Caron.

SN785675 to

SN158502

Allt Pontfaen -

Coed Gelli-Fawr

SSSI

The rich epiphytic lichen flora is of national importance, featuring

many old forest species. Several notable woodland plants and

invertebrates occur. Dormice are also present, as well as many

species of woodland birds.

SN023340/SN0

60354

Banc-Y-Mwldan

SSSI

This site consists of a number of lowland unimproved pastures lying

along the

south-eastern slope of the valley of the Afon Mwldan, where sandy

glaciofluvial drift, support a remarkable assemblage of plants not

known elsewhere in south-west Wales. In Ceredigion itself the

presence of so many calcicolous species, several of them otherwise

confined to the Ynyslas dune slacks in the north, makes this a site

of outstanding floristic and ecological interest in this predominantly

acidic District. The site also has an insect fauna of national

significance.

SN198486

Banc-Y-Warren

SSSI

This is an important site for fluvioglacial landforms and sediments. SN205484 and

SN204475

Caeau Crug

Bychan, Ty Gwyn

A Lleyn Ysgaw

SSSI

Caeau Crug Bychan, Ty Gwyn a Llwyn Ysgaw is of special interest

for the species-rich wild plant community of these arable fields and

for populations of nationally scarce and regionally rare plants. The

arable fields and associated banks provide important feeding areas

for birds including chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, linnet Carduelis

cannabina, skylark Alauda arvensis and yellowhammer Emberiza

citrinella. The quail Coturnix coturnix, which is a rare summer visitor

to Ceredigion, has also been recorded at the site.

SN176514,

SN197521 &

SN215521

Carn Ingli SSSI The site is of special interest for its oceanic heathland vegetation

which is intermediate between upland and lowland heath. Rock

outcrops and associated blockfields and small areas of spring-fed

flushes add to the diversity. Several scarce plants, including

lichens, occur as does the nationally rare damselfly, Coenagrion

mercuriale.

SN052371

Coed Maedie B

Goddard Wildlife

Trust Reserve

Many butterfly species use the meadows and woodland edges,

including Common Blue, Small Skipper, Gatekeeper, Ringlet,

Orange Tip and Speckled Wood among others. Brown Hairstreak

eggs have been observed on Blackthorn in the hedgerows.

A large Badger sett can be found in one of the wooded gulleys, and

Goldilocks Buttercup (4-5) also occurs on the reserve.

SN210437


Page 62



Coed Ty-Canol

(Ty-Canol Wood)

SSSI and

National Nature

Reserve

Grazed woodland, boulder-strewn heathland and rock outcrops of

outstanding national

importance for epiphytic and saxicolous lichens.Notable insects

include two rare moths that have lichen-feeding caterpillars - the

dotted carpet Alcis jubata and the Brussels lace Cleorodes

lichenaria, and a third scarce moth is the light knot grass Apatele

menyanthidis. The purple hairstreak Quercusia quercus and silverwashed

fritillary Argynnis paphia butterflies, and the kneeled

skimmer dragonfly Orthetrum coerulescens breed. The terrestrial

molluscs are especially diverse. Dormice, polecats and hares are

present. Pied flycatchers breed in Hagr-y-coed, and amongst other

birds of interest are breeding stonechats and wheatears on the

heathland of Carnedd Meibion Owain.

SN092369

Coed Tyddyn-Du

SSSI

An important example of a secondary woodland which has

developed for nearly a century on former agricultural enclosures.

The wood is of special interest because its composition has

developed with little known interference by man, it is the largest

lowland broadleaved wood in Ceredigion and it forms an extensive

and diverse wildlife habitat. Twelve old enclosures are included in

the site.Two still contain herb-rich pasture in their centres, with

scrub invading around theiredges. In their present condition these

glades are important for insects and small birds.

SN272426

Coedmor National

Nature Reserve

Established to protect the ancient oak woodland on the northern

and southern slopes of the Teifi gorge, just south of Cardigan in

Ceredigion. The area is adjacent to a number of areas of wildlife

interest, including the river Teifi and marshes.

SN202439

Coedydd A

Corsydd Aber

Teifi SSSI

Events during the Ice Ages are largely responsible for the wide

range of rich wildlife habitats occurring in this site. Irish Sea ice is

thought to have blocked the old, more westerly course of the lower

Teifi with glacial deposits, forcing the river to carve a deep gorge

from Llechryd to Cardigan. The sea level junction between the

youthful Teifi gorge and the wide poorly drained earlier valley floor

at Pentood has resulted in extensive areas of estuarine marsh.

SN183458 –

SN212434

Cwm Bach,

Sychpant SSSI

South-facing valley sides with patches of open woodland supporting

a rich lichen flora including Lobarion and pre-Lobarion communities.

Invertebrates, particularly butterflies, are also noteworthy.

Butterflies recorded include high brown fritillary Argynnis adippe,

silver-washed fritillary A. paphia, pearl-bordered fritillary Boloria

euphrosyne, small pearl-bordered fritillary B. selene and holly blue

Celastrina argiolus. A scarce hoverfly Arctophilia fulva, occurs and

breeding birds include redstart and tree pipit. Palmate newts occur

in a small pond.

SN044351

Dyffryn Gwaun

SSSI

The largest remaining wetland in the Gwaun valley. The vegetation

varies from grazed fen and bog to alder Alnus glutinosa and grey

willow Salix cinerea carr and the aquatic communities of the River

Gwaun. The wide mature valley is a product of erosion by

subglacial meltwater and its sluggish meandering river, with its

associated wetlands, is rich is plants and animals. Notable epiphytic

lichens festoon the classic fen-alder carrs. Amongst the scarce

invertebrates are four species of fly: Limnophila glabricula,

Lasiopogon cinctus, Tabanus sudeticus, and Arctophila fulva, and

two beetles: Elaphrus uliginosus and Chaetarthria seminulum. Pied

flycatcher breed in Llannerch alder carr whilst otters frequent the

river.

SN050348


Page 63



Felin Llwyngwair

SSSI

The site is of special interest as one of only three known nursery

roosts for the greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum in

Pembrokeshire. It is located approximately 1 km east of the coastal

town of Newport. Lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros

in small numbers also use adjacent buildings.

Brown long-eared bats Plecotus auritus and the common pipistrelle

bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus have both been recorded at this site.

SN069393

Gallt Llanerch –

Coed Gelli-Deg

SSSI (includes

Llanerch Alder

Carr Wildlife Trust

Reserve)

Ancient, semi-natural woodland exhibiting some fine mature

standard oak and ash trees, at the eastern end of the Gwaun Valley

sub-glacial meltwater channel. The nationally important lichen flora

is particularly rich in old forest species of the Lobarion and pre-

Lobarion communities. Breeding birds include, amongst others,

great spotted woodpecker, wood warbler, redstart and pied

flycatcher. Dormice are present.

SN056352 -

SN073364

Garn Wood

Kilkiffeth Wood &

Dan-Deri-Cwm

Felin-Ban SSSI

These three areas of semi-natural broadleaved woodland, with their

numerous small waterfalls and gorges, clothe the steep valley sides

in the middle reaches of the River Gwaun. Nationally important

epiphytic lichen communities occur, with many species indicative of

ancient woodland. Scarce woodland ferns are also present.

SM996351,

SN014340 and

SN014343

Gwaun Pen-Lan

SSSI

A herb-rich meadow situated above the upper Teifi gorge on a

damp clayey soil at an altitude of 61 metres.

The great diversity of herbs and the surrounding native trees and

scrub provide an excellent habitat for invertebrates, 21 species of

butterfly having been recorded to date.

SN204434

Gweunydd

Blaencleddau

SSSI

Gweunydd Blaencleddau is of special interest for its complex of

marshy grassland, wet-heath, blanket bog, fen and flush

communities, and the significant populations of the southern

damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale and marsh fritillary butterfly

Eurodryas aurinia which these support.A large population of the

nationally scarce marsh fritillary butterfly is present.The nationally

rare southern damselfly is found in a few baserich flushes,

favouring the slow flowing channels and seepages choked with

plants such as marsh St John’s-wort. Birds recorded include reed

bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, grasshopper warbler Locustella

naevia and willow tit Parus montanus.

SN156316

Mynydd Preseli

SSSI

The unenclosed common grazings of Mynydd Preseli, topped by

numerous cairns or tors of hard igneous rock, are of special

biological interest for their wetland, heathland and grassland

vegetation and the many associated rare plants and animals. The

extensive and varied grazed wet flushes and tiny streams of the

lower slopes support the second largest population of the

endangered southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale in Britain.

The marsh clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata also occurs in these

wet flushes and is more abundant here than elsewhere in Wales. A

total of 17 different dragonflies have been recorded, and other

notable damselflies present include the small red damselfly

Ceriagrion tenellum and a scarce blue-tailed damselfly Ischnura

pumilio, which has its largest known Pembrokeshire population on

Gors Fawr. Mynydd Preseli also holds the largest Pembrokeshire

population of the black darter dragonfly Sympetrum danae. The

marsh fritillary butterfly Eurodryas aurinia breeds at Waun Isaf,

where scarlet tiger moths Callimorpha dominula are also found.

Otters and dippers frequent the larger watercourses.

SN110330


Page 64



Newport Cliffs

SSSI

Exposed, west-facing cliffs up to 100 metres in height, with diverse

sea-cliff vegetation.

The very rare perennial centaury Centaurium scilloides occurs in

abundance at its northernmost location in Europe. Breeding birds

include chough, as well as small numbers of razorbills, cormorants,

shags and fulmars. Grey seals breed in the caves.

SN054407 –

SN064432

Pengelli Forest

and Pant-Teg

Wood Wildlife

Trust Reserve,

SSSI, and

National Nature

Reserve

These two contiguous woods form the largest block of ancient seminatural

woodland in south-west Wales. There is an exceptional

variety of woodland types, including scarce communities. The

plateau alder wood, which has features of oak-ash-hazel lowland

plateau woodland, is the most unusual. Numerous scarce woodland

plants and animals are present. The site is the most well

researched forest in west Wales. Interesting insects present are the

oil beetle Meloe proscarabaeus, the dark bush-cricket Pholidoptera

griseoaptera and the speckled bushcricket Leptophyes

punctatissima. Woodland butterflies recorded include the purple

hairstreak Quercusia quercus, silver-washed fritillary Argynnis

paphia and white letter hairstreak Strymonidia w-album. Pearlbordered

fritillary butterflies Boloria euphrosyne occur in the small

fields. Dormice are present and pied flycatchers and wood warblers

breed.

SN130392

Penralltfach

Wildlife Trust

Reserve

The land falls steeply away from the minor road as well drained Oak

woodland with some fine specimens of old Oak, uncommon in

Pembrokeshire. A track (woodland ride) runs north/south along the

bottom of the wooded area.The free draining river edge supports

extensive stands of Water Avens (5-9), uncommon in

Pembrokeshire. Three species of orchid have been recorded:

Twayblade (6-7), Heath Spotted (6-8) and a Marsh Orchid. To

further enhance the habitats, a large pond has been created near

the centre of the site, although the area around has been subject to

the planting of exotic shrubs and plants including Bamboo.

SN144291

Rhos

Pwllygawnen

SSSI

This is an extensive area of wet heathy pasture on shallow peat

situated at the head of a tributary of Afon Cynin at 210 metres (687

feet) above sea level. The site is one of the last remaining blocks of

unimproved acidic pasture in the district of Carmarthen and is

representative of the type of grassland that was formerly

widespread on poorly-drained soils in this area. Light grazing has

produced a mosaic of sedge-rich swards amongst taller poor fen

grassland and patches of wet heath. Seasonal flushing adds further

diversity to the habitats present. Grasshopper warblers breed in the

grey willow Salix cinerea carr that has invaded the wetter areas,

and whinchats are frequent. Resident butterflies include marsh

fritillary Eurodryas aurinia and small pearl-bordered fritillary Boloria

selene, whilst the rare hoverfly Microdon mutabilis, occurs on the

wet heath where the larvae develop inside ants' nests.

SN292300


Page 65



Wallis Moor SSSI The site is of special interest for its wet heath and marshy grassland

and an important population of the nationally scarce marsh fritillary

butterfly Eurodryas aurinia. These communities have developed

over poorly drained peaty gleys around the headwaters of Spittal

Brook. The low-lying areas contrast with patches of acid grassland

together with tiny fragments of dry heath on the higher, better

drained ground near Pen y Garn which is crowned by lichen-clothed

Ordovician rock outcrops and associated large boulders. Wallis

Moor supports one of the largest marsh fritillary populations in

Pembrokeshire. Otters frequent Spittal Brook.

SN010260

Waun Fawr,

Puncheston SSSI

The site is of special interest for its population of the internationally

rare southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale, which breeds in

this small valley mire complex alongside the upper reaches of the

Afon Anghof, above Puncheston. Numerous springs and tiny

streams account for the extensive flushes which are grazed by

cattle and ponies, and support a large population of the damselfly.

Amongst the abundant wetland plants is a significant population of

the pale butter-wort Pinguicula lusitanica. Otters frequent the Afon

Anghof alongside the common.

SN017303


Appendix 2

List of species to be assessed in the desk study. The legislation column indicates whether

that species is listed in Section 42 of the NERC Act 2006, has a UK Biodiversity Action Plan

(BAP), is listed on a Schedule of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended), or is a

European Protected Species and therefore protected under the Conservation (Natural

Habitats) Regulations 1994 (CR).

Species Legislation

Mammals

Brown hare Lepus europaeus UK BAP, SECTION 42

Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius UK BAP, CR, SECTION 42,

Schedule 5

Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Schedule 9

Harvest mouse Micromys minutes SECTION 42, UK BAP

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus SECTION 42

Mink Mustela vison Schedule 9

Otter Lutra lutra UK BAP, CR, SECTION 42,

Schedule 5

Pine marten Martes martes UK BAP, SECTION 42, Schedule 5

Polecat Mustela putorius UK BAP, SECTION 42

Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus

Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris UK BAP, SECTION 42, Schedule 5

Water vole Arvicola terrestris UK BAP, SECTION 42, Schedule 5

Birds

Black grouse Tetrao tetrix Schedule1, UK BAP and Section 42

Black tailed godwit Limosa limosa Schedule 1 and UK BAP

Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Schedule1, UK BAP and Section 42

Corncrake Crex crex Section 42

Cuckoo Cuculus canorus UK BAP and Section 42

Curlew Numenius arquata UK BAP and Section 42

Garganey Anas querquedula Schedule 1

Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria Section 42

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Schedule 1 Part 2

Grey partridge Perdix perdix UK BAP and Section 42

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Schedule 1

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus UK BAP and Section 42

Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius Schedule 1

Hen harrier Circus cyaneus Schedule 1 and Section 42

Merlin Falco columbarius Schedule 1

Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus UK BAP and Section 42

Pintail Anas acuta Schedule 1 Part 2

Quail Coturnix coturnix Schedule 1

Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus UK BAP and Section 42

Ring ouzel Turdus torquatus UK BAP and Section 42

Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula Section 42

Skylark Alauda arvensis UK BAP and Section 42

Song thrush Turdus philomelos UK BAP and Section 42

Spotted crake Porzana porzana Schedule 1

Page 66



Species Legislation

Tree pipit Anthus trivialis UK BAP and Section 42

Woodlark Lullula arborea UK BAP and Section 42

Wood warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix UK BAP and Section 42

Yellow wagtail Motacilla flava UK BAP and Section 42

Page 67



· web viewsurvival of the latter by restricting access to resources. consequently, a reduction in...

Documents