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
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
December 2009
Page 22
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
December 2009
Page 24
tial ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
ological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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 198719982 - 77% Significant decline predicted
Cuckoo Wales - 19%
Likely to have declined
significantly over this period
Curlew*¹ Wales - 26%
Likely to have declined
significantly over this period
Merlin Wales
Increased from
1983 – 19933 uncertain
Song thrush* Wales - 2% Possible slight decline
Reed bunting* UK + 24% Uncertain trend
Tree pipit Wales - 22 %
Likely to have declined
significantly over this period
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
December 2009
Wood warbler UK - 16% Likely significant decline
Grey partridge UK - 14%
Likely to have declined
significantly over this period
* 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 13% 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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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.
Options for mitigation and compensation
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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.
Options for mitigation and compensation
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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.
Options for mitigation and compensation
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
significance of adverse impacts
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)
Likelihood, magnitude and
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
Likelihood, magnitude and
significance of adverse impacts
remain uncertain
Hedgehog Semi-improved and
improved grassland; open
woodlands; hedgerows;
County
value
Probable significant beneficial
effect
Page 42
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
December 2009
Ecological Associated Species / Value Confirmed Effect
Receptor Habitats
parks and gardens
Polecat Wide variety of farmland
habitats
County
value
Likelihood, magnitude and
significance of adverse impacts
remain uncertain
Other
receptors
Rabbit Wide variety of farmland
habitats; agricultural and
coastal grasslands
Negligible
value
Likelihood, magnitude and
significance of any impacts
remain uncertain
Fox Wide variety of farmland
and other habitats
Negligible
value
Probable significant beneficial
effect
Page 43
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
December 2009
9 Conclusions and Consequences for DecisionMaking
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Welsh Assembly Government
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, 327381.
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) 2543.
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, 113117.
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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, 349356.
Page 54
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Figures
Page 55
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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
Title Ecological Impacts
of Badger Control
Drawn by
Sheet Modified by - date
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
Title Ecological Impacts
of Badger Control
Drawn by
Sheet Modified by - date
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
Title Ecological Impacts
of Badger Control
Drawn by
Sheet Modified by - date
CW
1/1 CW - 29/10/09
A - 07/08/09
Key
Kilometres
Tresaith
Cenarth
Dinas
Penygroes
Puncheston
Page 56
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Appendices
Page 57
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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 IsoëtoNanojuncetea. 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--breconsaclist/afon-teifi--riverteifisac.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 (AlnoPadion, 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)
http://www.ccw.gov.uk/lan
dscape-wildlife/protecting-ourlandscape/
special-sitesproject/
aber-to--breconsaclist/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)
http://www.ccw.gov.uk/lan
dscape-wildlife/protecting-ourlandscape/
special-sitesproject/
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)
http://www.ccw.gov.uk/lan
dscape-wildlife/protecting-ourlandscape/
special-sitesproject/
glannau-togweunyddsaclist/
gweunyddblaencleddausac.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)
http://www.ccw.gov.uk/lan
dscape-wildlife/protecting-ourlandscape/
special-sitesproject/
north-to-rhos-saclist/
north-pembswoodlandssac.aspx
Page 58
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Page 59
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
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)
http://www.ccw.gov.uk/lan
dscape-wildlife/protecting-ourlandscape/
special-sitesproject/
north-to-rhos-saclist/
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)
http://www.ccw.gov.uk/lan
dscape-wildlife/protecting-ourlandscape/
special-sitesproject/
north-to-rhos-saclist/
preseli-sac.aspx
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Page 61
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Site Name Description Grid Reference
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
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Page 62
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Site Name Description Grid Reference
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
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Page 63
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Site Name Description Grid Reference
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 preLobarion 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
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Page 64
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Site Name Description Grid Reference
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
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
Page 65
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Site Name Description Grid Reference
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
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009
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
Potential ecological consequences of a badger removal operation in the IAPA Welsh Assembly
Government
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) December 2009