Slow-worm site loss

A case has cropped up at work wherein an isolated population of slow-worms in a city centre is to be partially lost to housing.

Developers are proposing to move all of the slow-worms into the 40% of the site that is to be retained. They argue that with 'habitat enhancement measures', this remaining area can support the translocated population. An option that we prefer is to translocate to a big site across the road. This is a former landfill site which has been landscaped. It consists mostly of rough grassland with some scrub, scree, boulders and a pond. There are no slow-worms at the moment but on the opposite site it connects to a disused railway line which has slow-worms.

With this limited information, which do people think is the best option - squeezing the animals into 40% of their site, or translocating to a site which has no history of slow-worms?

The exact nature of the enhancements has not yet been specified, and these might be part of the planning conditions. But at the moment the site is a mixture of woodland and scrub with some clearings and lots of rubbish - ideal for slow-worms, so it's difficult to see how it can be enhanced in order to cram more animals in. The remainder will be relatively safe under a 106 agreement, and will probably come under the ownership of the LA.

We recognise the problems of translocation, but here it's a case of which is the lesser of two evils.

Robert,

I really have to disagree with you on this one. If I understand your comments correctly, you are suggesting that volunteers within ARGs should respond to planning threats by voluntarily catching and translocating reptiles. No assessment of impacts, no survey of potential receptor sites, no cost to developer. This takes us back to the bad old days of 'rescues', where animals were removed from sites at the last minute and basically dumped onto receptor areas where the basic requirements of the species were poorly understood.

Disclaimer - The worst of the so called 'ecological consultants' still do this.

In my opinion both BHS and English Nature have a *very* poor track record of delivering protection for widespread reptile species at the organisational level. Note that individuals within both organisations are often very active in their local areas, but usually through their associations with other local groups.

What needs to happen is for protected species issues to be properly dealt with in the planning system. Developers need to pay for *high quality* surveys and be prepared to implement best practice as far as mitigation is concerned. We have moved a long way in this regard in recent years, although there is still a very long way to go. Guidelines coming soon from EN should hopefully set a new baseline with regard to reptile mitigation work.

Matt, since I work as a consultant professionally I usually prefer not to offer mitigation advice wearing my voluntary/recording hat. However, in this case I think a reasonable (but not necessarily the best) strategy would be to maintain some of the population within the area that will not be disturbed. Encourage positive management of this area and seek long term site safeguards. If 40% of the site is being offered, take it! Don't loose the whole area!

At the same time, if the population is very large, dumping all animals into 40% of the site is not an acceptable strategy. Therefore, some animals - founder stock if you like - could be translocated elsewhere. The receptor site should be properly surveyed and habitat/landscaping works designed and implemented to ensure that translocated individuals have the best chance for future population sustainability. Ideally targets for 'success' should be defined and the site monitored. Try to work with the consultants and help them to develop a strategy that is acceptable to their client (cost-wise), while at the same time ensuring that any mitigation work has a meaningful conservation outcome.

This strategy will enable the original population to survive, whilst at the same time facilitating establishment of a new population.   

 

Lee, thanks for the very useful comments on the subject. I think it is sometimes the feeling of helplessness at seeing vast tracts of land torn up and knowing the extent of the damage being done to herptile populations that leads to the desire to protect first - assess later type of thinking. I take on board what you say, that removal without consideration is not the best way to work and I agree 'dumping them anywhere' is best avoided.

You made the point perfectly to David, in that interested parties DO look to the BHS as a sort "guardian" of all things herptile (rightly or wrongly). Maybe it's because they are theoretically based at Regents Park zoo or even that the organisation boasts some of the most knowledgable people in this field, but, as a member in the past I certainly assumed that the first port of call when considering 'a major impact' situation should be to the BHS. Surely, the very fact that they are volunteers and not doing it for the money would tend to reinforce that viewpoint. Like I said in my earlier posting, I wished I had known about a site like this, then. Communication being the key. But I wonder, does this site ever get a mention in the natterjack or the Bulletin? 

As for English Nature; for whatever reason, its powers, contact points, aims and purposes, its finance/backing, or its heirarchy,I would wager, are all a mystery to a majority of the general public (myself included). I thought that when planning consent for sites is sought or examined, it was the local authority's so-called 'conservation officer' that advises on these type of issues. Ideally, it should be possible for conscientious people like Matt to be able to turn to the BHS / English Nature and for the site to be recorded and prioritised for action. If the need is urgent an interested party cannot be expected to trawl around various different departments or groups before he/she finds someone to listen/act. But still, the very fact we're talking about the subject on here is sort of progress anyway and thats a start eh? R     

  

Gemma,

The new BHS web site is coming together nicely and RAUK is certainly listed there.

Lee