Appendix 7.11 Deer Survey Report - Northumberland€¦ · Scotland. Sika Coniferous woodlands and heaths on acid soils. Non-native Widespread in Scotland. Patchy in England and Northern

AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 3: Figures and Appendices

Appendix 7.11 Deer Survey Report

Environment

Northumberland County Council 12th October 2009

Morpeth Northern Bypass Deer Survey Report

Prepared by: ........................... Checked by: ....................................................... Gareth Parkinson Jennifer Davis Ecologist Ecologist

Approved by: .................................. Lorraine King Associate Director Morpeth Northern Bypass Deer Survey Report

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by

Date

0 Internal checking J. Davis L. King 19/11/09

1 Issue to client

First Floor, 1 Trinity Gardens, Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 2HF Telephone: 0191 224 6500 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No 60095823 Reference Re12 Date Created 12th October 2009 This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. f:\projects\53101ilee morpeth northen bypass\04_reports\reports\site_visit_reports\deer\morpeth northern bypass deer survey report rev 1.doc

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

1.1 The Development .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 The Purpose of the Report .................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Deer Ecology ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Legislation and Conservation ................................................................................................................................ 3

3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Ecological Data Search ......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Incidental records .................................................................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Deer Surveys ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Survey Constraints ................................................................................................................................................ 6

3.5 Assessment Method .............................................................................................................................................. 6

4 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

4.1 Ecological Data Search ....................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Daytime Field Surveys, Vantage Point Surveys and Transects ........................................................................... 10

4.3 Incidental records ................................................................................................................................................ 10

5 Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11

5.1 Conservation Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 11

6 Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12

6.1 Purpose of Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................... 12

6.2 Suggested Mitigation Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 12

6.3 Residual Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 12

7 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13

7.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 13

8 References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figures 15

Figure 1: Site Location Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2: Survey Area .................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3: Survey Results (Maps 1 and 2)....................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix A: Deer Fence Specification ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Tables Table 1: Habitat Preferences and Distribution of Deer in the UK ......................................................................................................2

Table 2: Determining Nature Conservation Value.............................................................................................................................7

Table 3 : Determining the Magnitude of the Potential Impact ...........................................................................................................8

Table 4 : Overall Ecological Impact Significance ..............................................................................................................................9

Table 5 : Ecological Significance ......................................................................................................................................................9

Table of Contents

AECOM Morpeth Northern Bypass Deer Survey Report 1

Capabilities on project:

Environment

1.1 The Development

1.1.1 AECOM (formerly Faber Maunsell) was commissioned by Northumberland County Council to undertake ecological

surveys at the location of the proposed Morpeth Northern Bypass, Morpeth, Northumberland. Morpeth lies

approximately 16.2 miles north of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, with the general site location shown on Figure 1.

1.1.2 The proposed single carriageway bypass will be located to the north of Morpeth town centre and will link the A1 to the

B1377 (Whorral Bank). The bypass is required to remove a significant portion of traffic from Morpeth town centre,

thereby easing congestion as well as facilitating the regeneration of North Seaton, Camois and Blyth areas. The route is

shown on Figure 2, starting at approximate NGR NZ 180869 and finishing at approximate NGR NZ 211873. The

proposed bypass runs through an area that comprises improved grassland (grazed) and arable land bounded by

primarily species-poor intact hedgerows and fences.

1.1.3 An initial Ecological Walkover Survey was undertaken in March 2007 as part of an Environmental Assessment (Faber

Maunsell, April 2007) of the scheme. This highlighted that the area of the proposed route of the Morpeth Northern

Bypass may provide some habitat suitable for deer, in particular Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus).

1.2 The Purpose of the Report

1.2.1 A deer survey is required to determine the presence / absence of deer and the extent of deer activity within the area of

the proposed route, referred to as the Survey Area (see Figure 2). An assessment of any potential impacts which may

result from the construction and operation of the proposed bypass can then be made, with mitigation recommended to

minimise any impacts.

1.2.2 The report is based on information obtained from an Ecological Data Search, previous surveys and the results of the

Deer Survey commissioned specifically for this report.

1.2.3 The report is arranged as follows:

- Section 2 provides Background information and legislation relating to deer;

- Section 3 details the Methodology for the Ecological Data Search and Survey, as well as the Impact

Assessment Methodology;

- Section 4 describes the Results of the Ecological Data Search and Survey;

- Section 5 discusses the Impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed bypass;

- Section 6 discusses Mitigation to minimise any impacts and

- Section 7 provides a Summary of the report and its findings.

1 Introduction



Environment

2.1 Deer Ecology

2.1.1 There are six species of native and naturalised deer in the UK: red deer (Cervus elaphus); roe deer (Capreolus

capreolus); Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis); fallow deer (Dama dama); muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi); and sika

deer (Cervus nippon).

2.1.2 The species range in size from the Chinese water deer (90-100cm head-body length) to the red deer (165-260cm head-

body length). Summer and winter coats range from reddish brown to pale greyish brown with various markings

depending on species.

2.1.3 All species are active throughout the day and night, however periods of peak activity are at dusk and dawn.

2.1.4 The mating period (the rut) occurs in late summer/autumn with a single calf (occasionally twins) born in early summer of

the following year. The Muntjac has no clearly defined breeding season (Highways Agency, 2001).

2.1.5 Table 1 below shows the habitat in which each deer species can be found and an indication of their distribution.

Table 1: Habitat Preferences and Distribution of Deer in the UK

Species Habitat Origin Status and distribution

Roe Woodland and forest but may occupy fields when at high densities.

Native Common & widespread throughout Scotland & England except parts of Kent and the midlands.

Red Woodlands and forests but can adapt to open moor and hill on Scottish hills and south-west England.

Native Common in Scottish Highlands, Dumfriesshire, Lake District, East Anglia and the south-west of England. Present in the north of England, north Midlands, East Anglia, the New Forest and Sussex.

Fallow Mature broadleaf woodland with under-storey, open coniferous woodland, open agricultural land.

Non-native Widespread in England and Wales, patchy in Scotland.

Sika Coniferous woodlands and heaths on acid soils.

Non-native Widespread in Scotland. Patchy in England and Northern Ireland, absent from Wales.

Muntjac Deciduous or coniferous forests, but also found in scrub and over-grown gardens in urban areas.

Non-native South and central England and Wales. Patchy distribution up to Scottish border.

Chinese Water Deer

Reed beds, river shores, woodlands and fields.

Non-native Restricted to Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk with a few scattered sightings elsewhere.

2.1.6 Given the location of the study area and the known distribution of deer species as shown in Table 1 above, it is

anticipated that roe deer are the species most likely to be present within the site. For that reason, a more detailed

description of their ecology and behaviour follows.

2.1.7 Many studies have been undertaken into the territoriality and range size or roe deer, however many of the conclusions

drawn are contradictory and seem to vary widely dependent on the particular population being observed. Some

populations occupy the same area, within as little as 10 hectares, year after year, others move several kilometres

between winter and summer foraging areas and in all instances there may be occasions where deer make exploratory

movements outside of their usual home ranges (Fawcett, 1997).

2.1.8 Roe deer are considered a pest in some areas due to the potential damage they cause to agricultural crops and forestry

at high densities, both fallow and roe deer can have severe environmental impacts including structural alteration of

vegetation communities and biodiversity loss, although moderate deer densities tend to promote higher biodiversity

(White et al, 2004).

2 Background



Environment

2.2 Legislation and Conservation

2.2.1 The Deer Act 1991 consolidates the provisions of the Deer Act 1963 and the Deer Act 1980. Under this Act all wild deer

(except muntjac and Chinese water deer) are protected against killing and taking by a close season. Killing of deer at

night and the use of certain methods of taking and killing are also prohibited under this legislation.

2.2.2 No deer species are included in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan or the Northumberland Biodiversity Action Plan.

2.2.3 Whilst conservation considerations are important for some species of deer in certain areas, the impact on human safety

of traffic collisions with deer on proposed road schemes are also an important consideration.



Environment

3.1 Ecological Data Search

3.1.1 Statutory consultees (Northumberland County Council, Natural England and the Environment Agency) were contacted

requesting data search information. The consultees were sent a letter on 26 March 2007 requesting ecological data for

the site and surrounding area (up to approximately 1km distance). Information regarding designated sites was sought

from the wider area.

3.1.2 A review of the Ecology and Nature Conservation section of the A1-A192 South East Northumberland Link Road

Environmental Statement produced in January 2003 (Argus Ecological Services) was also undertaken.

3.1.3 A further data search was conducted in 2008 whereby information was sought from within 2km of the proposed bypass

route between the A192 and A197. The following consultees were contacted:

- Northumbria Mammal Group;

- British Trust for Ornithology (BTO);

- Plantlife;

- RSPB;

- The EYE Project;

- Northumberland Bat Group;

- Environment Agency;

- Northumberland Wildlife Trust;

- British Dragonfly Society;

- Butterfly Conservation;

- Northumberland Wildlife Trust;

- Northumberland County Council;

- Natural England and

- Northumberland and Tyneside Bird Group.

3.1.4 A review of data held on the National Biodiversity Network Gateway (http://www.nbn.org.uk/) was undertaken on the 14th

October 2009.

3.2 Incidental records

3.2.1 A number of sighting were made during other ecological surveys undertaken at the site. These records have been added

to those collected during the deer surveys considered in this report.

3 Methodology



Environment

3.3 Deer Surveys

3.3.1 The deer survey was undertaken in October 2009 using 3 different survey methods detailed below. The Survey Area,

vantage points and transect routes are shown in Figure 2.

Daytime Field Survey:

3.3.2 This survey involved walking all of the field boundaries and woodland within the Survey Area (excluding residential

properties) recording the following:

- Sightings – records of actual deer seen during the surveys

- Tracks/prints – as in all deer species, the footprints left are termed ‘slots’, and appear as typical ungulate

hooves in two halves or cleaves. When walking, a deer often places its hindfoot in the slot just left by a

forefoot, so the slots are said to ‘register’. At running speed, the two cleaves which comprise the hoof

splay out, as they also do on soft ground.

Roe deer tracks are characterised by their small size and the narrow, pointed shape of the hooves and by

the fact that the impressions are often flat due to the pads which extend out to the tip of the hoof. The

track is about 4.5cm long and 3cm broad.

- Droppings – the faeces of deer are short, cylindrical or almost spherical, smooth surfaced, often with a

small point to one end and a slight indent to the other.

Roe deer droppings are 10-14mm long and 7-10mm across. The droppings occur in heaps at the animal’s

feeding places but they commonly defecate whilst on the move.

- Lie-ups – deer have no permanent home, but sleep in any suitable place, which may exceptionally be

used more than once. Most deer pay little attention to the construction of their lie-up (or lair), they merely

lie down to rest and on account of their weight, the vegetation in such places becomes notably flattened.

The lair of roe deer, however, is rather different from those of other deer species, scraping away loose

leaves and twigs with its front hooves, before lying down to rest on the bare earth

Dusk and Dawn Vantage Point Surveys

3.3.3 Vantage points were selected according to topography (viewshed) and likely corridors of movement (such as streams,

hedgerows etc.).

3.3.4 Surveys were only undertaken during suitable weather conditions, which would provide optimum visibility and likelihood

of deer activity.

3.3.5 Surveyors used binoculars to scan the area around their vantage point continuously. Any sightings of deer were

recorded on suitably scaled ordnance survey maps, along with weather conditions and other factors which may influence

the results of the survey.

3.3.6 Twelve vantage point surveys were carried out in total (six at dusk and six at dawn) over the period of one night.

3.3.7 Surveys were commenced approximately ninety minutes before dusk and continued until 30 minutes afterwards, or until

visibility became significantly reduced, whichever was sooner.

Nocturnal Transect Surveys

3.3.8 Transects were walked along field boundaries intersecting the alignment of the proposed bypass.

3.3.9 Surveys commenced at least thirty minutes after dusk and involved the “lamping” of the area with high powered torches

for sightings of deer, which were recorded on an appropriately scaled ordnance survey map.



Environment

3.3.10 Three transects were undertaken simultaneously which covered the whole length of the proposed bypass.

3.4 Survey Constraints

3.4.1 A number of factors could have affected the efficacy of the surveys.

3.4.2 Many of the fields contained livestock, in particular sheep, which resulted in a lot of poaching and could have hidden

signs of deer which would otherwise have been recorded.

3.4.3 During the dawn vantage point survey at VP 6, there was some landscaping maintenance taking place, as well as a

farmer walking the fields checking livestock. This activity is likely to have precluded the possibility of any deer sightings.

3.5 Assessment Method

3.5.1 The method of evaluation and impact assessment used has been developed using guidance from Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2006). This gives guidance on the assessment of nature conservation value,

magnitude of potential impact and overall impact significance. These guidelines form the basis of the assessment

methodologies within this report.

3.5.2 The methodology below summarises the criteria as set out in these guidelines. These criteria are based on determining

firstly the value of the receiving site/feature/species, in this case deer (Table 2) and secondly the magnitude of the

potential impact on the species (Table 3), in order to provide an overall impact scoring and therefore the predicted

impact significance of the Morpeth Northern Bypass scheme on deer (Tables 4 and 5).



Environment

3.5.3 Table 2 provides guidelines in order to determine the nature conservation value of deer in the survey area. The

determined value for the deer population at this site is given in the Results Section 4.

Table 2: Determining Nature Conservation Value Nature Conservation Value

Selected Examples (Adapted from Biodiversity Evaluation Methods RPS Group Plc and SNH 2005)

Very High (International)

High importance and rarity, international scale and limited potential for substitution.

- An internationally designated site or candidate site (Special Protection Area (SPA), Special

Area of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar Site, Biogenetic reserve).

- Internationally significant and viable areas of a habitat type listed in Annexe 1 of the

Habitats Directive.

- Regularly occurring globally threatened species.

- Any regularly occurring populations of internationally important species that are rare or

threatened in the UK or of uncertain conservation status.

- A regularly occurring significant population/number of any internationally important species. High (National)

High importance and rarity, national scale and limited potential for substitution.

- A nationally designated site (Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature

Reserve (NNR)) or a discrete area which meets the published selection criteria for national

designation irrespective of whether it has yet to be notified.

- A viable area of a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat or of smaller areas of

such habitat that is essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

- A regularly occurring significant population/number of any nationally important species i.e.

listed on the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended).

- Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species that is threatened or

rare in the county or region.

- A feature identified as of critical importance in the UK BAP. Medium (Regional/ District)

High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution.

- Viable areas of key habitat identified in the Regional/District BAP or smaller areas of such

a habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of the larger whole.

- Regional/District significant and viable areas of key habitat identified as being of regional

value in the appropriate Natural England Natural Area.

- Any regularly occurring significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce,

or in the Local BAP or relevant Natural Area on account of its regional rarity or localisation.

- Significant populations of a regionally/county important species.

- Sites such as County Wildlife Sites or Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation,

selected on Regional/District criteria.

- Any regularly occurring significant population that is listed in a Local BAP on account of its

rarity or localisation. Low (Local)

Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale.

- Areas identified in a Local BAP or in the relevant natural area profile.

- Sites/features that are scarce within the locality or which appreciably enrich the local area’s

habitat resource.

- A diverse and/or ecologically important valuable hedgerow network.

- A significant population of a local important species i.e. listed in the Local BAP.

- Species populations of local importance. Negligible Very low importance and rarity, local scale.

- Areas of habitat considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the context of

the Parish or Neighbourhood.



Environment

3.5.4 Secondly, the magnitude of the potential impact of the Morpeth Northern Bypass scheme is assessed for deer,

independently of its nature conservation value or designated status, with guidelines shown in Table 3. The magnitude of

the potential impact for the deer population at the site without mitigation is given within the Impacts Section 5, with the

magnitude of the potential impact with mitigation given within the Mitigation Section 6. The magnitude of impact can be

both adverse and beneficial.

Table 3 : Determining the Magnitude of the Potential Impact

Magnitude of Impact Typical criteria descriptors

Major Adverse Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity; severe damage to key characteristic features or elements.

Beneficial Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality.

Moderate Adverse Significant impact on the resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements.

Beneficial Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements; improvement of attribute quality.

Minor Adverse Some measurable change in attributes quality or vulnerability; minor loss of or alteration to, one (or maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements.

Beneficial Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring.

Negligible Adverse Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements.

Beneficial Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements.

No change No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in either direction

3.5.5 Based on the nature conservation value of the deer population and the predicted magnitude of the potential impact, the

overall significance of the impact of the Morpeth Northern Bypass scheme can then be determined according to Table 4.

The impact significance in relation to deer at this site without mitigation is given within the Impacts Section 5, with the

impact significance with mitigation given within the Mitigation Section 6.



Environment

3.5.6 The overall significance categories described in Table 4 can be applied to beneficial as well as adverse effects.

Table 4 : Overall Ecological Impact Significance

Nature Conservation Value of Site

Magnitude of Potential Impact

Major Moderate Minor Negligible No change

Very high Very Large Large or Very Large Moderate or Large Slight Neutral

High Large or Very Large Moderate or Large Slight or Moderate Slight Neutral

Medium Moderate or Large Moderate Slight Neutral or Slight Neutral

Low Slight or Moderate Slight Neutral or Slight Neutral or Slight Neutral

Negligible Slight Neutral or Slight Neutral or Slight Neutral Neutral

3.5.7 The greater the environmental value or magnitude of impact the more significant the effect. In some cases the

significance in Table 4 is shown as being one of two alternatives. In these cases a single description should be assigned

with a reasoned judgement for the level chosen. This allows for the application of professional judgement in appraising

significance between individual sites which may not have equal significance within their context. Judgement should be

based on the significance categories outlined in Table 5.

Table 5 : Ecological Significance

Significance Category Typical descriptors

Very Large Only adverse effects are normally assigned this level of significance. They represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites or features of international, national or regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity. However a serious change in a site or feature of district importance may also enter this category.

Large These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important considerations and are likely to be material in the decision-making process.

Moderate These beneficial or adverse effects may be important, but are not likely to be key-decision making factors. The cumulative effects of such issues may become a decision making issue of leading to an increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or receptor.

Slight These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local issues. They are unlikely to be critical in the decision making process, but are important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project.

Neutral No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

3.5.8 In terms of protected species, it should be noted that irrespective of the ecological impact significance, mitigation will be

required to ensure the law is not contravened.



Environment

4.1 Ecological Data Search

4.1.1 None of the consultees provided information regarding deer populations within the Survey Area.

4.1.2 The National Biodiversity Network Gateway shows the presence of roe deer within the survey area (at a resolution of 10

kilometres). Muntjac was shown to be present in the 10km grid square to the north of the site. All records were part of

the British Mammal Atlas dataset with records made between 1970 and 2000.

4.1.3 No records of deer were reported in the A1-A192 South East Northumberland Link Road Environmental Statement

(Argus Ecological Services, 2002), although no specific surveys for deer were undertaken as part of that report.

4.2 Daytime Field Surveys, Vantage Point Surveys and Transects

4.2.1 These surveys were conducted between the 5 and 8 October 2009 (inclusive).

4.2.2 Weather conditions were favourable during these surveys, averaging 13oC, slightly overcast to clear and dry with light

winds.

4.2.3 The results of these surveys are shown in Figure 3. Target notes are shown on the drawing where significant impacts on

deer are likely to occur. These are discussed in section 6 of this report.

4.2.4 Two roe deer were sighted during the surveys. One was during a night-time transect (adjacent to woodland at Cotting

Burn). The other was sighted during a dawn vantage point survey (at Howburn Wood).

4.2.5 The area showing greatest activity was in the vicinity of Howburn Wood. Prints and droppings were recorded along field

boundaries in fields to the North and North-west of the wood, many in the area where the roe deer mentioned in

paragraph 4.2.3 was observed.

4.2.6 In addition, a number of lie-ups/scrapes/couches were recorded within Howburn Wood.

4.2.7 The other area of deer activity was in the same area as the other sighted deer, at Cotting Burn. Here there was also a

potential lie-up/scrape/couch and paths through the young woodland plantation could be associated with deer

movement.

4.3 Incidental records

4.3.1 Sightings of deer were made along Kater Dean and within Howburn Wood during the Phase 1 Habitat and Red Squirrel

Surveys during 2007.

4 Results



Environment

5.1 Conservation Impacts

5.1.1 Roe Deer are not subject to any international, European or national conservation protective legislation or listing (the

Deer Act 1991 being concerned primarily with hunting regulation and welfare rather than conservation). In addition, in

the context of the wider area the population at this site is not of such a size as to consider it of local importance.

Therefore, it is considered that the deer population at this site is of negligible conservation value.

5.1.2 The proposed route of the Morpeth Northern Bypass affects mostly arable fields, which are suboptimal foraging habitat

for deer. However, the proposed bypass does affect some areas of pasture and some corridors of movement are

intersected by the road. The proposed route of the road could therefore create a barrier to movement between the core

deer habitat in Howburn/Fulbeck Woods and fields to the north. It is therefore considered that the proposed scheme

would have a minor adverse impact on the local deer population.

5.1.3 As the deer population is of negligible conservation value and the impact magnitude of the scheme being minor adverse,

it is considered that the over ecological impact significance will be Slight Adverse.

5 Impacts



Environment

6.1 Purpose of Mitigation

6.1.1 As outlined in the introduction of this report, the issues surrounding deer and proposed road schemes are not simply

ecological but also of public safety. Collisions with deer can result in serious road traffic accidents and therefore it is

important to incorporate measures at the design stage to minimise the opportunities for deer to access the carriageway.

6.1.2 Therefore, whilst the ecological significance of the schemes impact on deer is only assessed as slight adverse, the issue

of road safety should also be taken into consideration when determining the level of mitigation effort required.

6.2 Suggested Mitigation Strategies

6.2.1 Denying deer access to the carriageway can be achieved through the deployment of deer fencing, a specification for

which is provided in Appendix A. The fencing is of such height and strength as to prevent the passing of deer into areas

beyond it.

6.2.2 Deer fencing is often deployed in conjunction with underpasses, the purpose of the fencing being to “funnel” the deer

under the road, allowing access to foraging areas on both sides of the proposed bypass.

6.2.3 However, deer fencing can be costly to install and therefore to minimise the amount of fencing required its use can be

concentrated in areas where deer are most likely to attempt to cross the carriageway.

6.2.4 Figure 3 shows three points along the proposed Morpeth Northern Bypass where underpasses may be feasible and of

use (target notes 1, 3 and 5). The three points coincide with watercourse crossings which may already feature some

form of bridge or culvert, thereby providing the opportunity for underpass creation. Of these points, target note 3 would

appear to be the most critical, with deer activity immediately to the west (2) and east (4). A line of deer fencing would be

installed to a sufficient distance either side of these underpasses, on both sides of the proposed road, to guide deer

towards them.

6.2.5 Other wildlife fencing can be incorporated with deer fencing, such as otter (Lutra lutra) and badger (Meles meles) where

collisions with these species are also likely to occur.

6.2.6 Where underpasses and deer fencing are not considered appropriate, other mitigation methods can be employed;

- Corridor planting: Corridors of trees planting along the embankments of the road provide cover and foraging for deer.

Deer will be more inclined to follow continuous lengths of cover rather than break into the open and cross the road

between foraging areas.

- Open verges: Tree planting is kept back from the edge of the carriageway in order to provide maximum visibility to

drivers if deer suddenly bolt from cover across the road.

6.2.7 In addition to the above, road signage indicating the presence of wildlife on the road could also help to reduce collisions.

6.3 Residual Impacts

6.3.1 Based on Table 2 within Section 3.4 Assessment Methodology, the magnitude of potential impact of the proposed

Morpeth Northern Bypass with mitigation is assessed as Negligible Adverse. Therefore with the nature conservation

value of the deer population assessed as Negligible (Section 4), the Impact Significance with mitigation is assessed as

Neutral, based on Table 3 in Section 3.4 Assessment Methodology.

6 Mitigation



Environment

7.1 Summary

7.1.1 Collisions between vehicles and wildlife can result in serious road traffic accidents, as well as negatively affecting wildlife

populations in the short and long term. Deer are the largest mammal species in Britain and as such pose a serious risk

to road safety where they regularly cross roads.

7.1.2 Measures to reduce the impact of proposed developments, and in this case reduce the likelihood of collisions between

vehicles and wildlife, should be incorporated at the design stage of such schemes.

7.1.3 The Morpeth Northern Bypass will sever a number of deer pathways between core areas of woodland habitat and

foraging areas. Aside from the direct impact of road casualties on the local deer population, the proposed scheme could

negatively affect the viability of the population in the long term through isolation. The overall Impact Significance of the

proposed route on deer without mitigation is assessed as Slight Adverse.

7.1.4 However, these impacts can be reduced with appropriate mitigation. This would include the provision of deer fencing

and of suitable crossing points of the road, for example under the two watercourse crossings (Cotting Burn and How

Burn). These mitigation measures can also be combined with those for other species such as badger and otter. This will

allow the continued use of foraging areas, whilst ensuring the safety of deer and of vehicle travellers. The overall

Impact Significance of the proposed route on deer with mitigation is assessed as Neutral.

7 Summary



Environment

AECOM (November 2009) St Leonard’s Link Ecology Surveys Report: Morpeth Northern Bypass. Ref.

53101/RE11/jrd

Argus Ecological Services (2003) A1-A192 South East Northumberland Link Road Environmental Statement, report

to Northumberland County Council

The British Deer Society website www.bds.org.uk

Corbet, G. B. & Southern, H. N. (1977) The Handbook of British Mammals; Second Edition; Blackwell Scientific

Publications Oxford

Bang, P. & Dahlastrom, P. (1977) Collins Guide to Animal Tracks and Signs;

Fawcett, J. K. (1997) Roe Deer; The Mammal Society & The British Deer Society

Highways Agency (2001), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.Vol 10, Sec. 4, Part 1.

Highways Agency (2008) Manual of Contract Documents for Highways Works, Vol3, Sec 1, H series

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006), Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the

United Kingdom.

National Biodiversity Network Gateway website http://www.nbn.org.uk/

White, P.C.L., Ward, A.I., Smart, J.C.R. & Moore, N.P. (2004) Impacts of deer and deer management on woodland

biodiversity in the English Lowlands, final Contract Report to the Woodland Trust, Grantham, Lincs.

8 References



Environment

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Survey Area

Figure 3: Survey Results (Maps 1 and 2)

Figures



Environment

Taken from ‘Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works’, Highways Agency (2009)

Appendix A: Deer Fence Specification