Lamb Drove SUDS Showcase Project Cambourne Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2010

Transcription

1 Lamb Drove SUDS Showcase Project Cambourne Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2010 Cambridgeshire County Council May 2010 Final Report 9S7422

2

3 HASKONING UK LTD. ENVIRONMENT Rightwell House Bretton Peterborough PE3 8DW United Kingdom +44 (0) Telephone Fax Internet Document title Lamb Drove SUDS Showcase Project Cambourne Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2010 Document short title Cambourne Phase 1 Habitat Survey Status Final Report Date May 2010 Project name Lamb Drove SUDS Monitoring Project number 9S7422 Client Cambridgeshire County Council Reference Drafted by Checked by Emma Mundy Kit Hawkins Date/initials check 24/05/2010. Approved by Matt Hardwick Date/initials approval 24/05/ Phase I habitat survey - i - Final Report

4 SUMMARY Royal Haskoning was commissioned to carry out two extended Phase 1 habitat surveys (JNCC, 2003) of two residential areas in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire, these being the Lamb Drove site which has Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) features and the Control site, which has traditional urban drainage. The different drainage systems of the sites have the potential to impact upon both the habitats and species currently present. The first survey was undertaken on the 3 rd of October 2007 and the second, which this report details, was undertaken on the 19 th of May Both surveys were undertaken by experienced ecologists from Royal Haskoning. The aim of the surveys were to assess whether SUDS improves biodiversity in urban areas, with the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey gathering information on habitat types at both sites as well as recording any signs of protected or notable species at both the Lamb Drove SUDS Site and the Control Site. No evidence of protected species was recorded during either survey. However, there are several habitat features within both study areas which offer opportunities for reptiles and birds, as well as the potential for bat foraging and commuting habitat. In addition to this, new hedgerow has been planted in the Control Site which will provide further habitat for nesting birds. MAVIS analysis (Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System) a classification program available from the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) website (CEH, 2000), was used to analyse the vegetation present at both sites in The analysis indicated that there is an acidic presence in the plant communities at both sites. The Countryside Vegetation System (CVS) classification identified the SUDS Site as a mix between rye-grass grassland and fertile mixed grassland. Both habitat classes are not identified as being diverse and weed species can be present. The Control Site was identified as grassy roadsides and rye grass / clover grassland, being an un-diverse but fertile area. MAVIS analysis of the 2010 survey results indicates that these classifications have slightly changed; the classification for the Control Site has changed slightly to rye grass grassland, which is still considered a common, un-diverse class. The CVS classification for the SUDS Site has insignificantly altered to be classified as either fertile grassland or rye grass grassland which are common habitat types though less diverse.. These changes are small but reflect that species composition on both sites has altered since The changes at the Control Site are due to the fact that it has been converted to amenity grassland. However, the changes at the SUDS site are of more relevance and should be monitored further, particularly due to the decline of aquatic plant species amongst the swales Phase I habitat survey - ii - Final Report

5 CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION Project background Report Structure Scope of Work Study Limitations 1 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Phase 1 Habitat Survey DAFOR MAVIS Assessment of Habitats for Faunal Species and Groups Bats (all species) Reptiles (all species) Birds (all species) Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) 4 3 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT Introduction Biological Records Data Search 5 4 RESULTS Control Site (CS) Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Target note CS Lamb Drove SUDS Site (LD) Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Target note LD Watercourse (W) Target note W Target note W Target note W Target note W Habitat Classifications for Control Site Habitats and botanical species Faunal species and groups Habitat Classifications for Lamb Drove Site Habitats and botanical species Faunal species and groups Phase I habitat survey - iii - Final Report

6 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 6 REFERENCES 32 APPENDIX A 33 APPENDIX B Phase I habitat survey - iv - Final Report

7 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project background Royal Haskoning was commissioned to undertake two Phase 1 Habitat Surveys of two residential areas in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire, based upon the revised Phase I methodology established by JNCC (2003). The two sites surveyed were the Lamb Drove Site (GC16), which has Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) features and the Control Site (GC21), which has traditional urban drainage features. Cambourne is a new settlement, approximately nine miles west of Cambridge (TL ). The Lamb Drove Site is located within Cambourne and is a residential development of 35 homes (built by Cambridge Housing Society) on a one hectare site. The purpose of this survey is to ascertain whether SUDS improves biodiversity in urban areas. Surveys have been conducted twice during the lifetime of the project; the first took place in October 2007, while this report documents the second survey, undertaken in May Species abundance was again recorded and is presented in this report, although this is not normally an acknowledged aspect of the Phase I Survey methodology (JNCC, 2003). Prior to the site visit a risk assessment was undertaken by the Project Manager using all available information on the site, indicating working methods believed to be necessary for site safety. This risk assessment was up-dated by the fieldworkers on arrival at the site and before commencing the survey. The survey was undertaken on the 19 th of May 2010 by experienced ecologists from Royal Haskoning. 1.2 Report Structure Section 1 provides an introduction into this study, with Section 2 providing an account of the methodology adopted during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey using the protocol established by JNCC (2003), including details of the area subject to survey. Section 3 provides an ecological baseline for the site, while results are provided in Section 4. A discussion and recommendations section is included as Section 5, while references are included as Section 6. A full species list is provided as Environmental Survey: Appendix A. 1.3 Scope of Work The aim of the survey and resulting report was to provide: A description of the habitats and species located within the study area; An assessment of the habitats with potential to support protected species; An assessment of the frequency of distribution of floral species; A comparison with the 2007 survey to determine changes in community and vegetation composition; and Recommendations for further surveys. 1.4 Study Limitations Phase 1 habitat surveys can be undertaken at any time of year, although the optimum time is between April and September. The 2007 survey was undertaken outside of this period; however, conditions were considered suitable in early October when the study 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

8 was undertaken. This seasonal constraint is unlikely to significantly affect the overall conclusions of the survey but it is important that this be taken into consideration when comparing the two surveys results Phase I habitat survey Final Report

9 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2.2 DAFOR The survey was conducted on 19 th May 2010 and followed the basic methodology established within the revised Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2003). All habitats and plant communities within the study area were recorded and mapped using an annotated, colour-coded map indicating broad habitat types and boundary features. Detailed descriptions and botanical species lists were recorded for each section of the sites. A full botanical species list is also provided as Environmental Survey Appendix A. Nomenclature of higher plants is as given by Stace (1999). Although no systematic surveys were carried out for either protected or United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) species, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey was extended to include an assessment of the habitat suitability for faunal species and groups, as discussed within Section 2.3 below. The survey focused on the SUDS site and the corridor of open space at the control site. The Lamb Drove SUDS scheme flows to a natural watercourse, a section of this watercourse was also surveyed to show the potential for colonisation of the study area by native species. All three sites together will be referred to as the survey area throughout this report. The DAFOR scale has been used to provide an estimation of the abundance for the floral species recorded within a 50cm radius of each target note location.. This was not undertaken for every habitat within each study area, but is provided as an abundance estimation for the main species within each site. Hedgerows and planted trees were not included with the DAFOR estimation. The definition of the classes of abundance used in the DAFOR scale is presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Definitions of classes used for DAFOR analysis Class: Typical abundance and frequency: Dominant (D) The dominant vegetation /species highly visible, usually more than 70% cover Abundant (A) Many individuals or patches visible, usually 30-50% cover Frequent (F) Several individuals or few patches, cover usually 10-20% Occasional (O) A small patch or a few individuals, cover usually around 5-8% Rare (R) Single, very small patch or individual, cover usually around 1-3% 2.3 MAVIS The result of this analysis is presented with each target note in Section 4 and also for each site in Environmental Survey: Appendix B. The 2010 data has been added to the original data to provide a comparison for the sites. MAVIS analysis (Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System) a vegetation classification program available from the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) website (CEH, 2000), has been used to analyse the vegetation present at both sites 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

10 MAVIS is a programme for analysing vegetation data using different types of classifications developed for Great Britain. These include the Countryside Vegetation System (CVS) and other measures, such as fertility and competitor scores, as used in Countryside Survey MAVIS also includes classification programmes for the National Vegetation Classification (NVC). MAVIS enables links to be made between botanical field data and a number of widely used classifications of plant species. The result is a standard description of the entered data in terms of each classification. The species recorded from several of the target notes for each site will be inputted into MAVIS to produce a typical classification of the habitat type present. Each species is ranked, in a similar method to DAFOR, to provide the program with information regarding the species composition of the site. 2.4 Assessment of Habitats for Faunal Species and Groups The 2007 survey did not find any signs of protected species; however, suitable habitat or sightings of bats, reptiles and birds were recorded during this survey to assess any changes to the sites, as summarised in Sections Bats (all species) Visual inspections were undertaken of trees with cracks, hollow branches or ivy-clad trunks offering suitable roosting sites Reptiles (all species) Visual inspections were undertaken and a general assessment of the habitat suitability within the study area for reptiles was conducted, with any potential locations being recorded Birds (all species) Detailed bird surveys were not carried out as part of the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey; however, any habitat with potential for supporting nesting and breeding birds was noted Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) As part of the survey, an assessment was made of the study area for the suitability of aquatic habitat for great crested newts Phase I habitat survey Final Report

11 3 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Introduction The following account provides an overview of the characteristics of the study area. Reference should also be made to Environmental Survey: Appendix A for a full list of the botanical species recorded on-site. Both the SUDS and Control sites lie within the West Anglian Plain Natural Area. Natural Areas have been formally defined as biogeographic zones which reflect the geological foundation, the natural systems and processes and the wildlife in different parts of England and provide a framework for setting objectives for nature conservation (HMSO, 1995). The West Anglian Plain Natural Area comprises flat or gently rolling land with managed hawthorn hedges and occasional ancient woods, separated by extensive tracts of intensively managed arable land. The West Anglian Plain also has an extensive series of old flooded gravel pits, clay pits and reservoirs, many of which have swamp vegetation or reedbeds along their margins. There are no international or nationally designated protected sites within a 1km radius of the study area (MAGIC, 2010). 3.2 Biological Records Data Search Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre (BRC) undertook a search of biological records in 2008, within a 2km radius of the study area, which produced a list of records, detail species, importance and date recorded. No records were found of any rare or important floral species within the area (CPBRC, 2008). Some records of Schedule 1 and 5 faunal species were found in the wider 2km search area (CPBRC, 2008). Full details of all records discovered can be found in Environmental Survey Appendix B in the 2008 report Phase I habitat survey Final Report

12 4 RESULTS 4.1 Control Site (CS) Target note CS1 Housing development on Friar Way (B3.6), with no natural habitat features. Area is urban (B3.6), with small strips of amenity grassland (J1.2) adjacent to properties (Figure 4.1). The area has not changed since 2007 and due to its urban nature, no DAFOR analysis was undertaken for this area. Figure 4.1 Location of target note CS Target note CS2 This site is bounded to the south east by Foxhollow Road and was classified in 2007 as poor semi-improved grassland (B6) amongst a residential development (B3.6) and adjacent to a dry ditch (J3.6). A pathway has been created through the site since the 2007 survey and trees and hedgerow species (hazel, hawthorn, elder and rose) have been planted along the edge. The grassland has changed to amenity grassland (J1.2). The 2010 survey indicated that this diversity had declined and that the site is now predominantly grass species with ribwort plantain, red clover, dandelion, creeping buttercup, daisy and cabbage thistle Phase I habitat survey Final Report

13 DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location CS2 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.1. Figure 4.2 Location of target note CS2 Table 4.1 Target note location CS2 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location CS2 Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Trifolium pratense Red clover A O Senecio jacobea Common ragwort A Not present Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A R Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O R Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup A R Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O R Rumex sanguineus Wood dock R Not present Silybum marianum Milk thistle A Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O R Urtica dioica Common nettle R R Bellis perennis Daisy R R - Grass sp. - D 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

14 4.1.3 Target note CS5 In the 2007 survey, CS5 was classified as ephemeral / short perennial (J1.3) with small areas of poor semi-improved grassland (B6), surrounded by residential development (B3.6). In 2010, the CS5 was classified as amenity grassland (J1.2) amongst a residential development (B3.6) (Figure 4.3). The area was dominated by perennial rye grass with ribwort plantain, black medick, red clover, slender speedwell, cabbage thistle and spear thistle. No other grass species were recorded. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location CS5 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.2. Figure 4.3 Location of target note CS5 Table 4.2 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location CS5 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 CS5 Trifolium pratense Red clover A O Senecio jacobea Common ragwort A Not present Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A R Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A F Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup F Not present Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O Not present Rumex sanguineus Wood dock R Not present 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

15 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Taraxacum officinale agg Dandelion R R Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present Bellis perennis Daisy R R - Grass sp. - D Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - R Target note CS6 In 2007, CS6 was classified as poor semi-improved grassland (B6), with a few scattered trees along the fence/ditch boundary, surrounded by a residential development (B3.6) (Figure 4.4). In 2010, CS6 was recorded as being amenity grassland (J1.2), with grass species now being the dominant vegetative form, with common floral species such as willowherb, black medick, ribwort plantain and cabbage thistle also being present. Hazel, hawthorn and elder had again been planted along the ditch. Also, a larger hazel had been planted in the grassland area. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location CS6 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.3. Figure 4.4 Location of target note CS Phase I habitat survey Final Report

16 Table 4.3 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location CS6 Target note location CS6 Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Trifolium pratense Red clover O O Senecio jacobea Common ragwort O Not present Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A O Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O Not present Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup A Not present Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O Not present Rumex sanguineus Wood dock R Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion R R Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present - Grass sp. - D Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - O - Willowherb sp - R Target note CS7 In 2007, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey classified this area as an area of poor semiimproved grassland (B6) and bare earth (J4). There are no longer areas of bare ground on the site, except for the path which runs through the area. In addition, the site has changed to amenity grassland (J1.2). Species recorded in 2010 included perennial rye grass, ribwort plantain, hoary plantain and creeping thistle. A hedge of elder, hawthorn and hazel has been planted along the fence line. Creeping buttercup was present under the hedgerow. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location CS7 (TL ) is presented in Table Phase I habitat survey Final Report

17 Figure 4.5 Location of target note CS7 Table 4.4 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location CS7 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 CS7 Trifolium pratense Red clover A O Senecio jacobea Common ragwort F Not present Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A R Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A Not present Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup F Not present Rumex crispus Curled dock O Not present Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O Not present Rumex sanguineus Wood dock O Not present Silybum marianum Milk thistle A Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion R R Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present Bellis perennis Daisy R R - Grass sp - D Plantago media Hoary plantain - O 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

18 4.1.6 Target note CS10 This area was classified as poor semi-improved grassland (B6), bordered by a residential development (B3.6) in In 2010, the area has a section of bare ground (J4) present, in the form of the path, which is bordered by amenity grassland (J1.2) (Figure 4.6). Hazel and Acer sp. trees have been planted in the grassland, while a hedgerow of hawthorn and hazel has been grown along the fence. Creeping buttercup was present in several places under the hedgerow. The grassland was comprised of perennial rye grass, hoary plantain, spear thistle, ribwort plantain, dandelion and slender speedwell. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location CS10 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.5. Figure 4.6 Location of target note CS10 Table 4.5 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location CS10 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 CS10 Senecio jacobea Common ragwort O Not present Cirsium oleraceum Cabbage thistle A Not present Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue F Not present Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup O Not present Rumex crispus Curled dock O Not present 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

19 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock A Not present Silybum marianum Milk thistle O Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O R Urtica dioica Common nettle R Not present Bellis perennis Daisy R R - Grass sp. - D Plantago media Hoary plantain - R Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle - R Veronica filiformis Slender speedwell - R 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

20 4.2 Lamb Drove SUDS Site (LD) Target note LD16 Area of unimproved acid grassland (B1) leading to a retention pond (Figure 4.7). The 2010 survey recorded ox eye daisy, ribwort plantain, meadow buttercup, cuckoo flower, common vetch, black medick, cranesbill sp., common daisy, red clover, white clover, broad leaved dock, hemp agrimony, hoary plantain, smooth hawksbeard, flag iris and yarrow. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location LD16 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.6. Figure 4.7 Location of target note LD16 Table 4.6 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location LD16 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 LD16 Iris pseudacorus Flag iris R R Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R Not present Rumex sanguineus Wood dock O Not present Rumex obtusifolius Broad leaved dock O O Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A O Trifolium incarnatum Long-headed clover O Not present 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

21 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Trifoilum repens White clover A F Trifolium pratense Red clover A F Eupatorium cannabinum Hemp agrimony R R Chenopodium polyspermum Many-seeded goosefoot R Not present Plantago media Hoary plantain A F Achillea millefolium Yarrow R O Malva sylvestris Common mallow R Not present leucanthemum vulgare Ox eye daisy - F Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain - F Ranunculus acris Meadow buttercup - O Cardamine pretensis Cuckoo flower - O Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - O Vicia sativa Common vetch O Grass species D Target note LD17 Area of unimproved acid grassland (B1), leading from Basin C (Figure 4.8). Despite several aquatic species being recorded in 2007, no aquatic plant species were present in the area during the 2010 survey. The 2010 survey recorded ox eye daisy, black medick, common vetch, ribwort plantain, yarrow, hoary plantain, alder, clover sp, broad leaved dock and creeping buttercup at this location indicating a transition in plant communities. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location LD17 (TL ) is presented in Table Phase I habitat survey Final Report

22 Figure 4.8 Location of target note LD17 Table 4.7 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location LD17 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 LD17 Alnus glutinosa Alder R R Iris pseudacorus Flag iris R Not present Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R Not present Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O Trifolium spp. Clover species A F Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup O R Achillea millefolium Yarrow R O Plantago media Hoary plantain A O Rumex spp. Dock species A O Malva sylvestris Common mallow R Not present Caltha palustis Marsh-marigold R Not present Mentha aquatica Water mint R Not present Carex acutiformis Lesser pond sedge R Not present Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum Watercress R Not present 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

23 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - F leucanthemum vulgare Ox eye daisy - O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain - A Grass species D Target note LD19 Area of unimproved acid grassland (B1) and marshy grassland (B5) next to the cycleway (Figure 4.9). Changes were recorded in species composition in 2010 in comparison to the 2007 survey. Species recorded in 2010 include rushes, smooth hawksbeard, common vetch, black medick, ribwort plantain, hoary plantain, broad leaved dock, red clover, white clover, yarrow and bristly oxtongue. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location LD19 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.8. Figure 4.9 Location of target note LD Phase I habitat survey Final Report

24 Table 4.8 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location LD19 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 LD19 - Grass sp. D D Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue F O Trifolium spp. Clover species O O Achillea millefolium Yarrow R R Plantago media Hoary plantain O R Rumex spp. Dock species F F Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - F Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A Target note LD20 Area of marshy grassland (B5) close to a play area (Figure 4.10). Species recorded in 2010 survey included black medick, common vetch, slender speedwell, rough hawksbit, meadow buttercup, dandelion, flag iris, purple loosestrife, dock, rush, clovers, yarrow, hoary plantain, ribwort plantain and grass species. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location LD20 (TL ) is presented in Table 4.9. Figure 4.10 Location of target note LD Phase I habitat survey Final Report

25 Table 4.9 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location LD20 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 LD20 - Grass sp. D D Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R R Trifolium spp. Clover species O O Juncus spp Rush species O O Achillea millefolium Yarrow R R Plantago media Hoary plantain O O Rumex spp. Dock species O O Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - F Taraxacum officinale agg.dandelion - O Target note LD21 Basin B is an area of marshy grassland (B5) and drainage ditch (Figure 4.11). Flag iris, purple loosestrife, alder, grass, bristly oxtongue, clovers, yarrow, hoary plantain, ribwort plantain, dandelion, dock, meadow buttercup, rush, common vetch and willowherb were recorded on site during the 2010 survey. The marginal aquatic species water mint, lesser pond sedge, meadow sweet and marsh marigold were not recorded Phase I habitat survey Final Report

26 DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location LD21 (TL ) is presented in Table Phase I habitat survey Final Report

27 Figure 4.11 Location of target note LD 21 Table 4.10 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location LD21 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 LD21 - Grass sp. D D Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A O Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R R Trifolium spp. Clovers O A Achillea millefolium Yarrow R R Plantago media Hoary plantain F O Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O O Rumex spp. Dock species O O Medicaga lupiluna Black medick A Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain A Target note LD22 Swale A is an area of improved grassland (B4) outside residential properties (B3.6) (Figure 4.12). Species recorded at this location in 2010 include ribwort plantain, common hawksbeard, clovers, ox eye daisy, cuckoo flower, black medick, spear thistle, grass, bristly oxtongue, dandelion and dock Phase I habitat survey Final Report

28 DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location LD22 (TL ) is presented in Table Figure 4.12 Location of target note LD22 Table 4.11 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location LD22 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 LD22 - Grass sp. D D Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue A O Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup O Not present Plantago media Hoary plantain A Not present Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O O Rumex spp. Dock species O O Medicaga lupiluna Black medick - O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain - A - Clover species - F 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

29 4.3 Watercourse (W) Target note W12 Marshy grassland (B5) comprising a drainage ditch with areas of acid grassland around (B1) (Figure 4.13). Access to this area was restricted during the 2010 due to the area being closed for public access. Figure 4.13 and the vegetation classification was undertaken from the fence line and therefore some species may not have been recorded. The species identified in the 2010 survey included crucifers, wild teasel, rushes, Italian rye grass, bristly oxtongue, ribwort plantain, broad leaved dock, clovers, bulrush, willows and willowherb. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location W12 (TL ) is presented in Table Figure 4.13 Location of target note W12 Table 4.12 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location W12 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 W12 Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh foxtail R Not identified Cruciferae Unknown crucifer species R R Dipsacus fullonum Wild teasel O O Juncus spp Rushes A A Lolium multiflorum Italian rye-grass A A Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue O O 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

30 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain R O Rumex hydrolapathum Water dock O Not identified Rumex sanguineus Wood dock R R Senecio jacobea Common ragwort R Not identified Sparganium erectum Branched bur-reed O Not identified Taraxacum officinale Dandelion O R Trifolium spp Clovers O O Typha latifolia Common reedmace A O Urtica dioica Common nettle O O Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay willowherb - F Target note W13 This area was inaccessible for the 2010 survey and has therefore not been included Target note W14 Drainage ditch (B5) of marshy grassland bordered by tall ruderals (Figure 4.14). Species recorded at this location in 2007 included rushes, grasses, Italian rye-grass, cow parsley and common nettle. The same species were recorded in 2010, but the abundance of rushes had declined. In addition, willowherb and dock species were also recorded as being present. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location W14 (TL ) is presented in Table Phase I habitat survey Final Report

31 Figure 4.14 Location of target note W14 Table 4.14 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location W14 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 W14 Juncus spp Rushes F F - Grass species A F Lolium multiflorum Italian rye-grass A A Anthriscus sylvestris Cow parsley R R Urtica dioica Common nettle O O - Willowherb species - O Target note W15 The area is comprised of scrub, predominantly hawthorn and bramble next to the watercourse (A2) (Figure 4.16). The 2010 survey recorded included hawthorn, Italian rye-grass, rosebay willowherb, cow parsley, common nettle and bramble. DAFOR analysis of the vegetation present at location W15 (TL ) is presented in Table Phase I habitat survey Final Report

32 Figure 4.15 Location of target note W15 Table 4.14 DAFOR analysis of floral species recorded at location W15 Target note location Scientific name Vernacular name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 W15 Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna A A Italian rye-grass Lolium multiflorum F F Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium R R Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris R R Bramble Rubus fruticosus A A Urtica dioica Common nettle - O 4.4 Habitat Classifications for Control Site Habitats and botanical species The control site is now made up of amenity grassland corridors that divide the housing development. A dry ditch runs along the western boundary of the site and is culverted at the junction with the road at the southern site boundary. The ditch is small and considered to have no potential for protected species. Hedgerow species have been planted along the western edge of the site and the occasional tree has been planted in the middle of the site Phase I habitat survey Final Report

33 With respect to the Phase 1 Habitat classification system (JNCC, 2003), the following habitats were noted as being present: Amenity grassland (J1.2); Scattered trees (A.3.1); and Bare ground (J4); Figure 4.16 provides a Phase I habitat (JNCC, 2003) map of the control site, including locations of target notes Faunal species and groups No evidence of protected species was recorded during either the 2007 or 2010 surveys. Several mature trees lined the ditch at the northern end of the site, while a hedgerow running along most of the western boundary of the site is likely to provide habitat for breeding birds Phase I habitat survey Final Report

34 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

35 4.5 Habitat Classifications for Lamb Drove Site Habitats and botanical species The SUDS Site contains a series of swales, mown amenity grassland planted with saplings such as alder and a retention pond. The site is bordered by roads, housing and footpaths. There have not been any changes to the Phase I habitat types (JNCC, 2003) since the 2007 survey, with the following habitats being noted as being present: Poor semi-improved grassland (B6); Amenity grassland (J1.2); Scattered trees (A.3.1);and Hard standing / built-up areas (J3). There was a decline of marginal and aquatic plants recorded in the 2010 survey, particularly in the southern extent of the site. Figure 4.17 provides a Phase I habitat (JNCC, 2003) map of the Lamb Drove SUDS site, including locations of target notes Faunal species and groups No evidence of protected species was recorded at the SUDS Site during the 2007 and 2010 surveys. However, the downstream watercourse has a riparian corridor of various mature tree species, which has the potential to support bird and bat species. 9S7422 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

36 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

37 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since the first survey was undertaken in 2007, both the SUDS and Control Sites have maintained a moderate diversity of plant species which are of limited conservation significance. There has been a decline in the total number of plant species recorded at both sites; the Control Site has declined from 34 plant species in 2007 to 24 species in 2010, with this decline being primarily due to the transition from poor semi-improved grassland to amenity grassland. Tree planting has occurred since 2007 and a hedgerow has been started along the western boundary of the site. Once this is established it will provide habitat for nesting birds. The SUDS Site still has 30 species present; however, the number of marginal and aquatic plant species has declined, with flag iris and rushes now being the only aquatic plants present on the site. This decline in plant species would indicate that the swales are not receiving or keeping enough water to maintain aquatic plant communities. Since 2007 there has been an increase in ephemeral/short perennial species such as ox eye daisy and black medick. MAVIS analysis (Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System) (CEH, 2000), was used to classify the vegetation present at both sites in The analysis indicated that there is an acidic presence in the plant communities at both sites. The Countryside Vegetation System (CVS) classification identified the SUDS Site as a mix between ryegrass grassland and fertile mixed grassland. Both habitat classes are not identified as being diverse and weed species can be present. The Control Site was identified as grassy roadsides and rye grass / clover grassland, being an un-diverse but fertile area. MAVIS analysis of the 2010 survey results indicates that these classifications have slightly changed; the classification for the Control Site has changed slightly to rye grass grassland, which is still considered a common, un-diverse class. The CVS classification for the SUDS Site had marginally altered to be classified as either fertile grassland or rye grass grassland which are common habitat types though less diverse.. These changes recorded are small, but reflect the fact that species composition on both sites has changed since The changes at the Control Site are likely to be due to the landscaping of the area to become amenity grassland, while the changes observed at the SUDS site are of more relevance and should be monitored further, particularly due to the decline of aquatic plant species amongst the swales Phase I habitat survey Final Report

38 6 REFERENCES Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2000). MAVIS Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System. Available from URL: Accessed on 19/05/2010. CPBRC (2008). Biological records data for Cambourne, Cambs. Data provided to Royal Haskoning by Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust Biological Records Centre. HMSO (1995). Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, Volume 1. HMSO, London, UK. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. MAGIC (2010). Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC). Available from URL: Accessed on 19/05/2010. Royal Haskoning (2008) Lamb Drove SUDS Showcase Project, Cambourne: Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Report for Cambridgeshire County Council. Stace C. (1999). New Flora of the British Isles. CUP, Cambridge, UK Phase I habitat survey Final Report

39 APPENDIX A BOTANICAL SPECIES LISTS 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

40 APPENDIX A - SPECIES LISTS Botanical Species Both English and scientific names of higher plants are as given by Stace (1999). Control Site Vernacular name Maple Sycamore Rosebay willowherb Cabbage thistle Spear thistle Hawthorn Common couch Beech Ash Perennial rye-grass Black medick Bristly oxtongue Ribwort plantain Hoary plantain Creeping buttercup Sweet-briar Bramble Broad leaved dock Dandelion Hop trefoil Red clover Subterranean clover Common nettle Slender speedwell Common vetch Scientific name Acer campestre Acer pseudoplatanus Chamerion angustifolium Cirsium oleraceum Cirsium vulgare Crataegus monogyna Elymus repens Fagus sylvatica Fraxinus excelsior Lolium perenne Medicaga lupiluna Picris echioides Plantago lanceolata Plantago media Ranunculus repens Rosa rubiginosa Rubus fruticosus agg. Rumex obtusifolus Taraxacum officinale agg. Trifolium campestre Trifolium pratense Trifolium subterraneum Urtica dioica Veronica filiformis Vicia sativa 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

41 SUDS Site Vernacular name Yarrow Alder Daisy Cuckoo flower Rosebay willowherb Many-seeded goosefoot Cabbage thistle Spear thistle Smooth hawksbeard Common couch Hemp agrimony Cranesbill Flag iris Rushes Ox eye daisy Perennial rye-grass Purple loosestrife Black medick Bristly oxtongue Ribwort plantain Hoary plantain Meadow buttercup Creeping buttercup Wood dock Broad leaved dock Dandelion White clover Red clover Slender speedwell Common vetch Scientific name Achillea millefolium Alnus glutinosa Bellis perennis Cardamine pretensis Chamerion angustifolium Chenopodium polyspermum Cirsium oleraceum Cirsium vulgare Crepis capillaris Elymus repens Eupatonum cannabinum Geranium spp Iris pseudacorus Juncus spp. leucanthemum vulgare Lolium perenne Lythrum salicaria Medicaga lupiluna Picris echioides Plantago lanceolata Plantago media Ranunculus acris Ranunculus repens Rumex sanguineus Rumex obtusifolus Taraxacum officinale Trifoilum repens Trifolium pratense Veronica filiformis Vicia sativa 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

42 Watercourse downstream of SUDS site Vernacular name Conifer sp. Hawthorn Unknown crucifer species Wild teasel Rushes Italian rye-grass Gipsywort Bristly oxtongue Ribwort plantain Blackthorn Water dock Wood dock Goat willow Osier Dwarf elder Elder Common ragwort Branched bur-reed Dandelion Clovers Common reedmace Common nettle Scientific name Coniferae spp. Crataegus monogyna Cruciferae Dipsacus fullonum Juncus spp Lolium multiflorum Lycopus europaeus Picris echioides Plantago lanceolata Prunus spinosa Rumex hydrolapathum Rumex sanguineus Salix caprea Salix viminalis Sambucus ebulus Sambucus nigra Senecio jacobea Sparganium erectum Taraxacum officinale Trifolium spp Typha latifolia Urtica dioica 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

43 APPENDIX B RESULTS OF DAFOR ANALYSIS 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

44 Target note location English name Latin / Scientific name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR Red clover Trifolium pratense A O Common ragwort Senecio jacobea A Not present Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A R Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O R Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens A R Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O R Wood dock Rumex sanguineus R Not present Milk thistle Silybum marianum A Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O R Common nettle Urtica dioica R R Daisy Bellis perennis R R Grass species - D 05 Red clover Trifolium pratense A O Common ragwort Senecio jacobea A Not present Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A R Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O O Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A F Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Not present Wood dock Rumex sanguineus R Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. R R Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Daisy Bellis perennis R R Grass species - D Black medick Medicaga lupiluna R 06 Red clover Trifolium pratense O O Common ragwort Senecio jacobea O Not present Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A O Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O Not present Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens A Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Not present Wood dock Rumex sanguineus R Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. R R Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Grass species - D 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

45 Target note location English name Latin / Scientific name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Black medick Medicaga l upiluna O Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium R 07 Red clover Trifolium pratense A O Common ragwort Senecio jacobea F Not present Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A R Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides A Not present Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F Not present Curled dock Rumex crispus O Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Not present Wood dock Rumex sanguineus O Not present Milk thistle Silybum marianum A Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. R R Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Daisy Bellis perennis R R Grass species - D Hoary plantain Plantago media O 10 Common ragwort Senecio jacobea O Not present Cabbage thistle Cirsium oleraceum A Not present Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides F Not present Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A O Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O Not present Curled dock Rumex crispus O Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius A Not present Milk thistle Silybum marianum O Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O R Common nettle Urtica dioica R Not present Daisy Bellis perennis R R Grass species - D Hoary plantain Plantago media R Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare R Slender speedwell Veronica filiformis R 16 Flag iris Iris pseudacorus R R Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria R Not present Wood dock Rumex sanguineus O Not present Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O O Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides A O 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

46 Target note location English name Latin / Scientific name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Long-headed clover Trifolium incarnatum O Not present White clover Trifoilum repens A F Red clover Trifolium pratense A F Hemp agrimony Eupatorium cannabinum R R Many-seeded Goosefoot Chenopodium polyspermum R Not present Hoary plantain Plantago media A F Yarrow Achillea millefolium R O Common mallow Malva sylvestris R Not present Ox eye daisy leucanthemum vulgare F Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata F Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris O Cuckoo flower Cardamine pretensis O Black medick Medicaga lupiluna O Common vetch Vicia sativa O 17 Alder Alnus glutinosa R R Flag iris Iris pseudacorus R Not present Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria R Not present Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O O Clovers Trifolium spp. A F Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O R Yarrow Achillea millefolium R O Hoary plantain Plantago media A O Dock Rumex spp. A O Common mallow Malva sylvestris R Not present Marsh-marigold Caltha palustis R Not present Water mint Mentha aquatica R Not present Lesser pond sedge Carex acutiformis R Not present Watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum R Not present Black medick Medicaga lupiluna - F Ox eye daisy leucanthemum vulgare - O Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata A 19 Grass - D D Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides F O Clovers Trifolium spp. O O Yarrow Achillea millefolium R R Hoary plantain Plantago media O R 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

47 Target note location English name Latin / Scientific name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 Dock Rumex spp. F F Black medick Medicaga lupiluna - F Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata - A 20 Grass - D D Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O O Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria R R Clovers Trifolium spp. O O Rush Juncus spp O O Yarrow Achillea millefolium R R Hoary plantain Plantago media O O Dock Rumex spp. O O Black medick Medicaga lupiluna - F Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg - O 21 Grass - D D Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides A O Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria R R Clovers Trifolium spp. O A Yarrow Achillea millefolium R R Hoary plantain Plantago media F O Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O O Dock Rumex spp. O O Black medick Medicaga lupiluna - A Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata - A 22 Grass - D D Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides A O Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O Not present Hoary plantain Plantago media A Not present Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O O Dock Rumex spp. O O Black medick Medicaga lupiluna - O Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata - A Red clover Trifolium pratense - F 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

48 Target note location English name Latin / Scientific name DAFOR 2007 DAFOR 2010 W12 Marsh foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus R Not identified Unknown crucifer species Cruciferae R R Wild teasel Dipsacus fullonum O O Rushes Juncus spp A A Italian rye-grass Lolium multiflorum A A Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides O O Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata R O Water dock Rumex hydrolapathum O Not identified Wood dock Rumex sanguineus R R Common ragwort Senecio jacobea R Not identified Branched bur-reed Sparganium erectum O Not identified Dandelion Taraxacum officinale O R Clovers Trifolium spp O O Common reedmace Typha latifolia A O Common nettle Urtica dioica O O Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium - F W13 Common reedmace Typha latifolia A Grass A Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata O Soft rush Juncus effusus R Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O W14 Juncus spp. - F F Grass - A F Italian rye-grass Lolium multiflorum A A Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris R R Common nettle Urtica dioica O O Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium - O W15 Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna A A Italian rye-grass Lolium multiflorum F F Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium R R Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris R R Bramble Rubus fruticosus A A Common nettle Urtica dioica - O 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report

49 =o=o=o= 2010 Phase I habitat survey Final Report