A Biodiversity Monitoring Framework for Devon

1. A Biodiversity Monitoring Framework for Devon Work Programmes for BIRG discussion 31/07/08 Ray Perrins

2. 1 Assessment of loss from BAP inventories BAP habitat inventories compiled by DBRC between 2001-04 Monitoring these inventories can only detect loss Each habitat has unique statistical characteristics Degree of change varies between habitats Therefore need separate sampling programme for each habitat Over 20 BAP habitats in Devon Selected 7 BAP habitats for a 7 year reporting cycle DBRC – hab sampling using quadrats and are points Needs refining in light of new habitat lists? Regional aggregation? Timing between counties and different cycles – might need regional consistency Same habitat for any one year across the region “mosaic” habitats have several BAP habitats BAP habitats should be designated as CWS – could combine 2 programmes?

3. 1 Assessment of loss from BAP inventories Criteria for selection: Of special importance to Devon Relatively high proportion in County Wildlife Sites Defined with high accuracy on aerial photos Wide distribution in Devon Habitats: Lowland mixed deciduous woodland Purple moor grass and rush pasture Lowland meadow Lowland Heathland Upland oak wood Coastal saltmarsh Sabellaria reefs

4. 2 Assessment of loss and gain from developments DBRC to work with local planning authorities Track actual outcomes (negative impact, positive mitigation) of a sample of applications assessed using BioPlan BioPlan is semi-automated tool developed by SERC Filters all planning applications against LRC data Made available from April 2008 Screens all 10,000 applications per year Small subset (150-250) may impact BAP habitats Recommend random sample of 50% to measure outcomes Liaison between LA ecologists and planning staff Delay of 2-3 years, assessment via aerial photo + some survey Up to date aerial photos Get developer to contribute to costs? Tools for screening applications – regionally consistent? Digitisation of planning boundaries for tool? If work programme achievable then will produce good indicator Enough time to confirm establishment of habitat?

5. 3 Assessment of gain from BAP initiatives • BAP reporting should be done through BARS • Previous discussions to link BARS with GIS (SERC, ERCCIS, NE) • Some work on BARS reporting necessary for project to proceed • IF site specific actions are captured through BARS and link made • to GIS by NE then DBRC can track changes • Identify intention to create/restore BAP habitat • Confirm works undertaken • Assess successful establishment of habitat • Aerial photos and some survey • Again time scale for habitat establishment to BAP level • Using BARS to report habitat gain • Linking BARS to GIS – do we need this? “web services?”

6. 4 Assessment of gain from management schemes Includes Environmental Stewardship and Woodland Grants Natural England and Forestry Commission “competent bodies” DBRC to liaise with NE and FC to develop a monitoring system for recording habitat gain Should include a GIS layer with three stages as BAP monitoring: 1) Identify intention to create/restore BAP habitat 2) Confirm works undertaken 3) Assess successful establishment of habitat Potential overlap with previous work programme Do-able from NEs point of view Need to contact FC

7. 5 Assessment of “spontaneous” BAP habitat gain Due to private initiative and natural change Needed to avoid negative bias in overall monitoring Habitat specific basis for 7 identified BAP habitats Habitat Suitability Indices – predicts where important species may be undetected Create “habitat masks” using physical information eg soil types Adaptive sampling Random sampling for assessment of habitat What does it mean (in terms of drivers)? Climate change? Does indicate overall state of biodiversity Needs work on justification for this Spontaneous habitat “change” Suitability index, habitat masks etc need to be agreed nationally Done via different project? Lots of work.

8. 6 Local Wildlife Site monitoring • Previous programmes will generate some LWS monitoring • Targeting of field survey using requirements of NI197 • Could use Integrated Habitat System (IHS), developed by SERC • Excludes advice to landowners/managers • Concerns about the “matrix” used for scoring – good • management but poor condition scores medium • Definitions need detail • Inconsistencies between counties – would need coordination • for a regional indicator for condition (OK for 197) • Use of IHS or other assessment tool – needs consultation • Link with NI197 – condition assessment on top of this • Get a framework for each county • Randomly select sites & write objectives, then track • Trial on 1-2 habitats (same 7 year cycle)

9. 7 Assessment of changes in biodiversity site designation Not considered as a meaningful indicator: Due to changes in procedure or evaluation NOT changes in biodiversity value But is part of a nationally defined indicator and low cost Entirely desk-based Via communication with NE (SSSIs) and DBRC (CWS) and GIS Would also be helpful to track reasons for changes in designation especially to CWS Area rather than number of sites Would need careful interpretation (eg if gains due to procedure) Administrative indicator, not biodiversity. Contextual indicator Regional figure through aggregating county figures