Derwent Forest Bat Survey Report. November 2009

Transcription

1 Capita Blackburn Business Centre, CastleWay House, 17 Preston New Road, Blackburn BB2 1AU Tel Fax Capita Symonds Ltd

2 Quality Management Job No CS Doc No. Project Derwent Forest Three Year Holding Programme Location Cumbria Document Ref Bat Survey Report File reference S:\Ecology\Projects\Derwent Forest Ecology\Reports 2009\Reports amended other timescales Nov09\Derwent Forest Bat Report 4Nov09 amended timescales.doc Date Prepared by Tabatha Boniface Signature (for file) Checked by Tabatha Boniface Signature (for file) Authorised by Lee Conroy Signature (for file)

3 Contents Contents 1. Summary 1 2. Introduction Background Site description Legal status Policy Personnel and Quality Assurance 5 3. Methodology Background Survey Objectives Desk Based Study Field Survey 7 4. Limitations Site Description Results Data Search Field surveys Evaluation and Interpretation The importance of the site for bats Conclusions Bat Behaviour at Derwent Forest Asbestos Works Programme Advice and Recommendations Further Survey Asbestos Works Programme and Mitigation Bibliography 28 Appendix A Location Map 1 Appendix B Site Map 2 Appendix C Data Search Bat Species Results 1 Appendix D Summary of Results of Previous Surveys 1 Appendix E Buildings listed for Asbestos Remediation 2 Page i

4 1 Summary 1. Summary Capita Symonds Ecologists, Blackburn were commissioned in April 2009 by Allerdale Borough Council and Cumbria County Council to undertake bat surveys at the Derwent Forest site near Cockermouth. The surveys were required to ascertain bat usage of the buildings on site that are scheduled for asbestos remediation works. In England bats and their roosts are protected by national and European legislation. In brief, it is illegal to kill, injure, or disturb bats, or to damage, disturb or to obstruct access to bat roosts in line with the following legislation: Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (as amended) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Building inspections were undertaken of all buildings listed for asbestos remediation works (Appendix E). Those buildings listed for activities likely to destroy, damage or significantly disturb bat roosts identified through the surveys were targeted for further emergence or re-entry surveys to confirm bat roosts. The majority of the buildings surveyed contained signs of bat usage in the form of scattered droppings and/or feeding remains (eg: yellow underwing moth wings). Several buildings were confirmed as containing bat roosts as follows: C75 C76 C88(2) C93 C97 Mag 06 (brown long eared feeding perch/night roost) Mag 168 Mag 306 Mag 307 Mag 318 Page 1

5 1 Summary Several buildings were considered to have high potential of containing bat roosts through evidence of clustered droppings beneath suitable access gaps as follows: C71B (bunker) Mag 02 Mag 03 Mag 16 Mag17 Mag18 Mag26 Mag 37 Mag 65 Mag 67 Mag 69 Mag 90 Mag 310 Mag 311 It was not possible to confirm these roosts through invasive buildings inspections due to health and safety considerations. Surveys revealed that common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and brown long eared are present in several bat roosts across the site. Noctule and Myotis species (most likely to be Whiskered/Brandt s and Natterer s) are also found foraging across the site. These species could also be roosting on the Derwent Forest site but this was not confirmed at this time. Recommendations are listed regarding how to proceed with the asbestos remediation works in terms of the impacts on bats including as well as further survey work and general enhancement measures including: The requirement for a Natural England European Protected Species Licence where bat roosts are likely to be destroyed through demolition or stripping of structures in the buildings. Appropriate mitigation will also be necessary where bat roosts are destroyed to compensate for this loss. This could entail the construction of permanent buildings on the site specifically designed for a range of bat species. It is recommended that the boarding of doorways and removal of asbestos debris can be undertaken without a EPS licence as long as it undertaken in a sensitive manner as prescribed in a Method Statement compiled by a suitably experienced bat ecologist. The communication of the method of working to Page 2

6 1 Summary contractors would need to be via a toolbox talk prior to any works commencing. The boarding up of the doorways will need to ensure sufficient access gaps are incorporated within them to allow bats to access the buildings. It is recommended that further surveys are undertaken at the Derwent Forest site to building up a comprehensive view of bat usage of the site. Further survey will be required where: Surveys will be required where activities likely to impact on buildings not surveyed in 2009 that could contain bat roosts or on woodlands or trees with the potential to support bat roots or with bat boxes attached. Surveys during the swarming and hibernation seasons should be undertaken as this has not taken place to date so knowledge of bat usage of the site at these sensitive times is currently unknown but could impact on activities on the site. It is recommended that the site is periodically resurveyed throughout the year on a rolling programme to keep knowledge of bat usage of the site up-to-date. This will ensure that ecological advice can be given immediately as any projects that may impact on them arise. General enhancement measures include installing grilles on bunkers, increasing connectivity of habitats across the site and retaining or extending semi-natural habitats. Page 3

7 2 Introduction 2. Introduction 2.1 BACKGROUND Capita Symonds Ecologists, Blackburn were commissioned in April 2009 by Allerdale Borough Council and Cumbria County Council to undertake bat surveys at the Derwent Forest site near Cockermouth. The surveys were required to ascertain bat usage of the buildings on site that are scheduled for asbestos remediation works and to identify any risks to bat roosts within them. 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The Derwent Forest site was formerly a Royal Navy Armaments Depot (RNAD), a Ministry of Defence (MOD) site known as Broughton Moor. The site covers approximately 425 hectares and is located north west of Cockermouth in Cumbria. There are approximately 283 buildings across the site that was decommissioned approximately 25 years ago. In the intervening years a range of habitats have gown up and the buildings that cover the site have been left open to grazing cattle that were on site until June Trespassers have also regularly accessed the site and used the buildings or vandalised them to some extent. 2.3 LEGAL STATUS In England, all British bats and their roosts are protected under UK and European legislation including the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended), the Countryside & Rights of Way Act This legislation gives substantial protection to bats and their roost sites, making it an offence to: Intentionally or deliberately take, kill or injure Damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts (a roost is defined as any structure or place that a bat uses for shelter or protection). Roosts are protected whether bats are present or not Deliberately disturb bats The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) places a duty on statutory authorities, such as local authorities, to have due regard for biodiversity and nature conservation while exercising their functions. 2.4 POLICY Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) and its accompanying guidance document Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice ODPM 06/2005 sets out government policy on biodiversity and nature conservation and places a duty on planners to consider impacts on legally protected species as a material consideration when determining planning applications. PPS9 also promotes sustainable development by ensuring that developments take account of the role and value of biodiversity and that it is conserved and enhanced within the development. Page 4

8 2 Introduction The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) (Anon, 1995), written to fulfil the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, to which the UK is a signatory, has produced a national priority species list with all species included having specific action plans defining the measures required to ensure their conservation. Regional and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) have also been written and adopted to develop plans for species of nature conservation importance at regional and local levels. The UKBAP, as updated in 2007, lists seven bat species as conservation priorities: Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Brown long-eared Plecotus auritus Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus Bechstein s Myotis bechsteinii Noctule Nyctalus noctula Greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros 2.5 PERSONNEL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE All ecologists employed by Capita Symonds are members of, or are under application for, membership of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and follow the Institute s code of professional conduct when undertaking ecological work. All fieldwork is carried out in accordance with current best practice guidelines (Mitchell- Jones, 2004; Anon, 2007), under the supervision of senior staff and licensed bat ecologists. Page 5

9 3 Methodology 3. Methodology 3.1 BACKGROUND 3.2 SURVEY OBJECTIVES Surveys at the Derwent Forest site were undertaken to fulfil the following objectives: To identify any features on site with the potential to support bats that would be affected by the scheduled asbestos works To identify existing bat roosts on the site To identify whether bats were present on the site at the time of survey To identify whether bats had used the site prior to survey To provide an assessment of the likely importance of the site for bats and bat conservation To provide clear advice on any necessary mitigation and enhancement proposals which will enable the proposed works to proceed in full compliance with relevant wildlife and nature conservation legislation. 3.3 DESK BASED STUDY A data search was requested from the county record centre, Tullie House, Carlisle for existing records of bats on or adjacent the survey site. Bat and vegetation surveys previously carried out at the site were also consulted: Jerram R (2001) Ecological Assessment RNAD Broughton Moor Billington G (2002) Preliminary Bat Survey and Assessment Broughton Moor Cumbria Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2002) Survey and Assessment of Results 2002 Draft Bat Mitigation Proposals Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2003) Bat Survey of Buildings Results 2003 Bat Mitigation Update Proposals Greena Ecological Consultancy Allchin L and Lee G (2003) Broughton Moor Vegetation Survey Entec UK Ltd Watson et al (2003) Broughton Moor: Protected Species & Ecological Mitigation Entec UK Ltd Page 6

10 3 Methodology 3.4 FIELD SURVEY BUILDING SURVEYS Building inspections were undertaken of all buildings that were listed for asbestos works. (See Appendix A). This comprised 196 buildings although all the External buildings and MAG308 had already been demolished. All buildings were inspected internally and externally for field evidence of roosting bats including droppings, urine staining, feeding remains, potential roosting/access points and live or dead bats. Observations were made from ground level using close focusing binoculars and a 1 million candlepower torch to aid visibility. Where necessary, an endoscope was used to facilitate the inspection of crevices EMERGENCE/DAWN SURVEYS Due to time restrictions a focused method of emergence survey was necessary. All buildings that were scheduled for works that could significantly impact on bats if they were roosting within the buildings were surveyed at dusk. Those buildings considered to have the most invasive works scheduled are listed below: Building No Scheduled Works 2009 Remove AC wall panels Remove AC roof C24 Remove AIB internal wall panels Remove AC roof and debris Remove AC canopy Remove AC switch cupboard C45 Remove AIB internal wall panels Remove AC roof Remove AC switch cupboard Remove bitumen felt to windows and debris Remove AC sheets to roof C46 Remove AIB internal wall panels Remove AC roof and debris Remove AC cladding Remove AC switch panel C47 Page 7

11 3 Methodology Building No Scheduled Works 2009 C75 Remove AC canopy to porch roof Remove AC canopy to porch walls (All below ACMs to be removed and building then removed down to slab level.) Remove AC wall cladding external Remove AC internal panels Remove AC rainwater goods Remove AC valley gutter Remove lino to floor Remove AC panel roof lining C76 Remove AC internal panels C79 Remove AIB panels C95 C97 Mag 108 Mag 114 Remove AC canopy roof Remove AC canopy roof Remove AIB panels Remove AIB panels Mag 168 Mag 302 Mag 303 Remove AC canopy Remove AC ceiling panels Remove AC floor debris Remove AC canopy Remove AC spouting Mag 306 Mag 307A Mag 312 Mag 318 Remove AC canopy Remove AC ceiling panels Remove AC debris to floor Remove AC roof Remove AC spouting Remove AC canopy Remove AC canopy splitter Remove AC residue Page 8

12 3 Methodology Building No Scheduled Works 2009 Remove AIB panels to door Mag 52 Remove AIB panels to door Mag 53 Mag 55 Remove AIB panel Mag 70 Mag 74 Remove AIB panels to walls Remove AIB panels to wall Temperature, wind speed/direction and cloud cover were recorded at the beginning and end of the emergence surveys, along with any significant weather changes during the survey (e.g. heavy showers). Emergence surveys began 30 minutes before sunset and continued for at least an hour and a half after sunset. The aim of the emergence surveys was to identify if bats were emerging from the buildings. Any buildings where emergence was not certain were surveyed at dawn to confirm re-entry of bats to a roost. During the survey surveyors were strategically positioned around the building so as to be able to observe any bats leaving or entering the building. All observed bat emergence was recorded; noting the time, the location and, where possible, the direction of flight, species and behaviour of the bat (i.e. commuting, foraging, social calling). Particular importance was placed on noting the location of any points where bats were observed leaving or entering the building. Surveyors were equipped with either a Petterson D240x time expansion bat detector, a Petterson D230 or a Duet combined frequency division and heterodyne bat detector, connected to a digital recording device. An Anabat remote bat detector was also used in conjunction with emergence surveys or left overnight to record bat activity throughout the night. The use of the Anabat bat detector was invariably targeted for use in confirmed bat roosts to confirm bat species and timing of bat activity. After completion of each survey session, the digital bat recordings were analysed using either BatScan v8.7 (Batbox Ltd, Steyning, West Sussex) or Batsound sonogram analysis software to confirm species identification. Anabat recordings were analysed in Analook software. Page 9

13 4 Limitations 4. Limitations Observations were limited to visits between May-July. Limiting the survey period to three months does not take account of bat activity on the site throughout the remainder of the active season for bats or take account of the presence of bats during swarming or the hibernation season. External field signs of bats can be lost over time due to weathering and damp conditions. Some bat species such as pipistrelles and brown long eared bats, are largely crevice dwelling bats. Their droppings and other field signs are therefore not always visible through routine, non-invasive building surveys. Not all buildings were accessible for inspection due to health and safety restrictions. The main reasons that prevented access were unsafe buildings where there was a high risk of the building collapsing, fallen asbestos which if trodden on would have released asbestos fibres and inaccessibility due to dense vegetation growth around the building. Due to the focused nature of the surveys for this particular piece of work, a comprehensive survey of all buildings and structures on site was not possible in the time available. Not all buildings were surveyed for emergence of bats. However, a precautionary approach is proposed for carrying out the works in order to avoid disturbance to bats. The majority of the floors of the buildings were covered in cattle manure and old bedding or feeding materials. This made locating bat droppings and feeding remains difficult. At the doorways this covering had often been blown by the wind to reveal bare floor; invariably scattered bat droppings were found in these areas. Page 10

14 5 Site Description 5. Site Description 5.1 The Derwent Forest site was formerly a Royal Navy Armaments Depot (RNAD), a Ministry of Defence (MOD) site known as Broughton Moor. The site covers approximately 425 hectares and is located north west of Cockermouth in Cumbria (Grid ref: NY ). The site contains approximately 283 buildings and was decommissioned approximately 25 years ago. In the intervening years the buildings that cover the site have been left open to grazing cattle that were on site until June Trespassers have also regularly accessed the site and used the buildings or vandalised them to some extent. 5.2 Habitats on site comprise unimproved neutral and calcareous grassland, semi-improved grassland, a significant area of coniferous plantation woodland in the centre of the site named Ribton Wood and broadleaved plantation woodland that extends into the site as gills on the west of the site known as Holden s Gill and Bottoms Wood. Streams run through these gills off the site. In the centre of the site is a large colliery spoil heap dating from the time when Buckhill Colliery operated coal mining at the site. Several ponds can be found across the site some of which are man-made ponds and reservoirs. 5.3 Across the site are a series of buildings which fall into three broad category types. All buildings are numbered (see Site Map at Appendix B) and prefixed by either MAG or C MAG BUILDINGS There are two MAG type buildings. The majority of the MAG buildings are arranged in rows across the site along former railway tracks. These buildings are constructed out of timber frames with corrugated asbestos panels forming the walls and roofs. (Type 1). The majority of these buildings are underboarded with smooth asbestos panels with tape covering the joints. Some of this tape has come unstuck over the years. A row of glass windows run down both sides of these buildings; these are sometimes grilled and they vary from remaining intact and having been broken. These MAG buildings are surrounded by high bunkers on three sides. Page 11

15 5 Site Description Figure 1 Typical MAG building surrounded by bunkers on three sides The second type of MAG building is a large brick built building with the exterior covered in render. These are also surrounded by bunkers on three sides. These have a porch with open ends on the front of the building (usually the south side of the building). There are two large doorways at the front of the building under the porch and two smaller back doorways. All doorways are open and do not currently have doors fixed to them. These MAG buildings have cavity walls with some internal walls made of breeze blocks. The roofs are flat concrete slab roofs. Inside the buildings two rows of brick columns support steel girders that stretch the length of the roof. The ceiling of the building is underlined with smooth asbestos panels. Figure 2 Second type of MAG building Page 12

16 5 Site Description C BUILDINGS C type buildings are usually brick built with corrugated asbestos roofs. These range in size from small former toilet blocks to large double warehouse style buildings. There is a concentration of C buildings in the centre of the site and around the spoil heap although they are also dotted across the site. Some C buildings vary from this general description such as C76 which is a small former office building with external corrugated asbestos panel walls and roof. Figure 3 Large C type building Figure 4 Small C type building Page 13

17 6 Results 6. Results 6.1 DATA SEARCH The results of a data search 5 km around the Derwent Forest site are listed at Appendix C. The biological records from Tullie House, the local records centre, show no records of bats or roosts on the Derwent Forest site. The records that do exist are largely of single bats of common pipistrelle, Daubenton s, noctule, brown long eared. There are larger nursery roosts of Whiskered bats recorded at Birkby and Dearnham Bridge and pipistrelle nursery roosts in Great Clifton, Workington and Cockermouth. Larger roosts of soprano pipistrelle are recorded at Bridgefoot and Workington with another large pipistrelle roost in Workington. A summary of the results of previous bat surveys at the Derwent Forest site is attached as Appendix D. 6.2 FIELD SURVEYS Below is an outline of the main points found from the 2009 bat surveys BUILDING SURVEYS Bat droppings were frequently found on bare floor areas inside buildings and scattered on walls. Occasionally a greater collection of droppings was found below gaps in the asbestos underboarding inside the buildings suggesting that these were more likely to be being used regularly by bats and probably as a bat roost. The majority of buildings surveys had bat droppings present. Type 1 MAG buildings provided roosting opportunities in the following locations: Behind barge boards on the exterior of the buildings Behind the asbestos panels used as underboarding inside the buildings. Droppings were found around corners of the buildings and underneath gaps in the boarding where the walls meet the ceilings. In a variety of locations accessed externally including ridge tiles and under corrugated asbestos roof panels. Page 14

18 6 Results Figure 5 Potential roosting point inside a Type 1 MAG building with bat droppings indicating a possible bat roost There were no Type 1 MAG buildings with confirmed roosts in them that were scheduled for asbestos remediation works. However, the following Type 1 MAG buildings contained evidence to suggest that bat roosts exit within them: MAG 02 MAG 03 MAG 06 MAG 16 MAG 17 MAG 18 MAG 26 MAG 37 MAG 65 MAG 67 MAG 69 MAG 90 Type 2 MAG buildings provide fewer opportunities for bat roosts although bat roosts were confirmed in MAG307 and MAG168 (both buildings of similar construction). It is believed that bats are roosting on wall tops where the brick walls meet the asbestos panel ceilings. Page 15

19 6 Results Figure 6 Wall tops in Type 2 MAG buildings with bat droppings on wall below indicating bat roost Type 2 MAG buildings scheduled for asbestos remediation works with confirmed bat roosts are as follows: MAG 168 MAG 306 MAG 307 MAG 318 (was also considered to have a bat roost present due to a collection of bat droppings around the wall and column at the entrance that indicate bats could be rooting on the wall tops). The larger C type buildings generally had scattered bat droppings either on walls or on the floor. It was not possible during this survey to confirm any bat roosts in these buildings although evidence of bat usage was found. Several of the C buildings in the central cluster of buildings (e.g. C88(2), C93, C97) had single common Pipistrellus pipistrellus or soprano pipistrelles P pygmaeus emerging from them particularly in the earlier part of the season. C75 was identified as accommodating brown long eared Plecotus auritus and pipistrelle roosting bats. The brown long eared bats numbered several individuals and were present throughout the maternity season. Page 16

20 6 Results C76 was identified as accommodating pipistrelle bats roosting in various locations inside the building and under the eaves of the roof on the outside. It may also accommodate a brown long eared roost although it was not possible to definitively confirm the brown long eared bat emerged from this building. C type buildings scheduled for asbestos remediation works with confirmed bat roosts are as follows: C75 C76 C88(2) C93 C97 Building No Type of Survey Signs of Roost Bat Roost Status C71B (bunker) Building survey One scattered pipistrelle dropping present. C83 Building survey Collection of brown long eared type droppings to SE apex behind opening. Mag 02 Building survey Approximately 5 droppings either side of south door. Cluster of 7 in SW corner and on wall. Occasional scattered droppings on wall - 3 scattered in north east corner. Mag 03 Building survey Scattered pip droppings at south doorway and floor. South west wall corner and 2+ on wall at north west window (pipistrelle type). Mag 06 Building survey Droppings at S. entrance. Cluster of droppings on East wall. Clustered under beam support, scattered droppings on bare areas of floor, cluster of yellow underwings on floor in middle of barn. Mag 16 Building survey Collection of pipistrelle type droppings (including fresh droppings) at gap in asbestos panel where it meets the ceiling on west wall. 1-2 pip droppings on N doorway, 5 stuck on NE corner and 5 BLE type on floor at S.apex. Mag 17 Building survey 5 pipistrelle droppings on N.apex, 6 quite fresh droppings on N.apex floor, W. wall approximately 7 pip type on south floor (~5), BLE (3). Moth wings Likely hibernation usage Likely brown long eared roost. Further emergence survey required. Likely pipistrelle roost. Further emergence survey required. Likely pipistrelle roost. Further emergence survey required. Brown long eared feeding/night roost and unconfirmed roost. Unconfirmed pipistrelle and brown long eared roost. Further emergence survey required. Unconfirmed pipistrelle roost. Possible brown long eared feeding perch/night roost. Page 17

21 6 Results on floor in middle of building. 2 BLE type and 4 pip type on floor and approximately 5 on E. apex wall. Mag 18 Building survey Possible roost pipistrelle type droppings in NW corner in the cobwebs. Pip and BLE type droppings at S. end of building and scattered droppings all over floor. Mag 26 Building survey Pip. Type droppings on S.apex ~10 droppings. 10 pip type droppings all scattered and approximately 15 pip type droppings and feeding remains (moth wings) on the floor throughout. Mag 37 Building survey Moth wings on floor, scattered droppings on wall and floor Mag 65 Building survey Pip droppings south wall, scattered moth wings throughout, Possible droppings on N gable end inside building. Mag 67 Building survey Scattered brown long eared droppings at north end. Approx. 15 scattered brown long eared and moth wings and occasional pip droppings N end. Mag 69 Building survey Pip type droppings on floor south apex, brown long eared dropping on wall. Scattered moth wings. Mag 90 Building survey Yellow underwing moth wings at south entrance. Occasional droppings on west and east walls no clusters, 7 pip/ble type droppings at north doorway and towards east on floor. Mag 310 Building survey Concentration of pip droppings floor on south apex near beam (~20), approximately 4 on SW floor and door. Scattered droppings on N.apex wall. Mag 311 Building survey Concentration of bat droppings on s.apex near beam, like Mag 310 (~10) and pip type droppings under gap on NW apex. MAG 318 Building survey Roost on wall top above column on east side of south doorway. Identified through collection of droppings on walls and column. Table 1: Summary of potential bat roosts through building inspections Likely pipistrelle roost. Further emergence survey required. Likely pipistrelle roost. Further emergence survey required. Likely brown long eared roost. Further emergence survey required. Likely brown long eared roost. Further emergence survey required. Likely pipistrelle brown long eared roost. Further survey required. Unconfirmed pipistrelle brown long eared roost. BLE feeding/night roost. Unconfirmed pipistrelle brown long eared roost. Likely pipistrelle roost. Further emergence survey required. Likely pipistrelle roost. Further emergence survey required. Unconfirmed brown long eared or pipistrelle roost. Page 18

22 6 Results DUSK/DAWN SURVEYS Below is a summary of buildings where bats were found emerging or re-entering at times that would indicate a bat roost is present: Building No Type of Survey Activity Noted Bat Roost Status C45 C71B (bunker) 2 x dusk. 1 x dawn. Anabat remote detector overnight 2 June x soprano pipistrelle emerged. No further emergence or re-entry on subsequent surveys. Brown long eared pass recorded at on 28 July 2009 C75 3 x dusk Up to at least 8 x brown long eared bats emerged from the building from eaves, ridge and internal locations. Bats heard during the daytime in the south western corner of building. Unconfirmed roost. Unconfirmed roost and likely hibernation roost. Confirmed roost of brown long eared bats. Possible roost of common pipistrelle bats. C76 3 x dusk Common pipistrelle bats emerging from eaves on eastern side of building and from internal locations. C88(2) Dusk 12/5/09 Emergence of common pipistrelle from hole in wall between building 88 and 96. C93 Dusk 27/5/09 Possible emergence of 1 x common pipistrelle C97 Dusk 12 and 27 Emergence of 1 x pipistrelle May 2009 Mag 168 Mag 306 Mag 307 Dusk and Anabat remote detector overnight Dusk 27/5/09 and 8/6/09 Dusk and Anabat 16/6/09 and 24/6/09 Brown long eared roost and soprano pipistrelle roost. 1 x pipistrelle emergence from building. Brown long eared bats emerging from building (possibly up to 7 bats). Foraging activity from pipistrelle and noctule nearby. Mag 318 Dusk 18/6/09 1 x soprano pipistrelle emergence from building. Table 2: Summary of roosts through dusk/dawn surveys Could be a maternity roost of brown long eared bats as bats present throughout maternity season. Confirmed roost of common pipistrelle bats. Possible roost of brown long eared. Confirmed roost of common pipistrelle. Confirmed common pipistrelle roost Confirmed pipistrelle roost Confirmed brown long eared and soprano pipistrelle roost. Confirmed soprano pipistrelle roost. Confirmed brown long eared roost Confirmed soprano pipistrelle roost. Page 19

23 6 Results BAT SPECIES The 2009 surveys have identified the following species as being present on the Derwent Forest site: Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Brown long eared Myotis species (likely to be Natterer s, whiskered/brandt s) Noctule Nyctalus noctula The surveys confirmed roosts of common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and brown long eared. Noctule bats were frequently detected and seen flying over the site just before or just after sunset as well as through the night on occasions. This would indicate that noctules are roosting nearby if not on site. This was not confirmed during these surveys and it is likely that noctules could be roosting in trees on site or in bat boxes installed on trees in woodland. Page 20

24 7 Evaluation and Interpretation 7. Evaluation and Interpretation 7.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SITE FOR BATS It is currently difficult to place the importance of the Derwent Forest site in terms of its bat populations. From the results of the surveys in and those carried out in 2009 it would appear that the majority of the roosts on the Derwent Forest site are of low numbers of bats, but that there are bat roosts across the whole site. Results of the data search show that there is a good number of bat roots recorded including those of common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long eared, Daubenton s, Natterer s and noctule. Some of the these records include nursery roots of tens of bats and even one of 200 pipistrelle bats in Cockermouth to the south east of the site. It is possible that the roosts at Derwent Forest are predominantly single male roosts or nonbreeding female roosts, both of which tend to roost in lower numbers. The roosts at building C75 and C100 (from previous records) could well be maternity roosts as good numbers of bats were present in the maternity season, although this has not been confirmed. It is clear from the data search that bat usage of the Derwent Forest site is under-recorded. It is also clear that the site plays an important role as a significant roosting and foraging site in a geographical area surrounded by bat roosts of a varied range of species. It is highly likely that the Derwent Forest site is of county importance due to its size and availability of so many potential roosting sites for bats, although this is currently difficult to quantify without ongoing survey and monitoring throughout the year ROOSTS The Derwent Forest site has confirmed roosts of: Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle and Brown long eared. MAG 307, MAG 168 and C75 are the most important roosts identified through these surveys as they contain a number of individuals. These roosts were also present throughout the maternity season so they could be maternity roosts, but this cannot be confirmed by surveys to date. The majority of other roosts identified through the surveys in 2009 are of single common or soprano pipistrelle bats. These could be males that tend to roost singly or non-breeding females. Type 2 MAG buildings need to be treated with caution as there are very few, if any, signs of bats inside the buildings. However, surveys have confirmed they are being used as bat roosts as shown by the results above. Page 21

25 7 Evaluation and Interpretation In addition, the site has additional roosting features in the form of bat boxes that were installed as a mitigation scheme in At this stage it is unknown how many of these are being used by roosting bats. Pipistrelle species, brown long eared bats and noctules are known to roost in the types of bat boxes around the site. This has implications for forestry management on the site which should be preceded by survey of bat boxes by licensed bat ecologists prior to works that could disturb or destroy bat roosts commencing FORAGING AND COMMUTING HABITAT The most distinct foraging behaviour noted is where bats either emerge into buildings or emerge from buildings nearby and then forage inside buildings nearby. The Derwent Forest site has a range of foraging areas from plantation woodland to open species-rich grassland. It is believed that the majority of the grassland provides good foraging through sheer numbers of insects and that bats can forage efficiently over these areas, particularly as there is no light pollution and very little disturbance. Pipistrelle bats were also frequently found foraging along hedge and shrub lines. Page 22

26 8 Conclusions 8. Conclusions 8.1 BAT BEHAVIOUR AT DERWENT FOREST The site is likely to be particularly attractive to bat populations in the area due to: Lack of disturbance Lack of lighting and light pollution Relatively infrequent disturbance from human activity and predators Abundance of insect rich habitats, and The extent, network and quality of the site and the habitats within it. In addition, the Derwent Forest site lies within largely undeveloped open countryside with a network of hedgerows, wooded areas, rivers and streams which is highly suitable for a range of bat species BUILDINGS AT DERWENT FOREST The buildings at the Derwent Forest site initially appear to be low potential buildings for bat roosts. However, surveys in and 2009 have confirmed that bats are using a variety of features within the buildings such as crevices between asbestos underboarding inside the buildings, crevices under asbestos corrugated roof panels on the exterior of the buildings and on wall tops inside brick built structures. The buildings also offer roosting and foraging opportunities in a range of environmental conditions from being situated amongst woodland to being located out in the open grassland. The building and dusk/dawn surveys have shown that bats spend a good deal of time inside buildings foraging which show that the buildings provide good early foraging areas before the bats fly out across the site or off site after initial feeding. In the area around C75 and C76 it would appear that bats are roosting in these buildings. When they emerge they go directly to larger buildings such as C77 and C78 in which they forage for a significant period of time. It is possible that bat populations at the Derwent Forest site could be using a variety of features in different buildings at different times of the year. Surveys were not undertaken during swarming season prior to hibernation or in the hibernation season. However, the Derwent Forest site offers conditions and structures suitable for swarming behaviour as well as hibernation roosts. The importance of the site for bat roosts throughout the year will need to be considered for any activities at any time of the year that are likely to impact on these roosts. Page 23

27 8 Conclusions 8.2 ASBESTOS WORKS PROGRAMME The Asbestos Works Programme is likely to involve the following activities: Demolition of C76 Installation of doorways on selected buildings to prevent access Removal of particular asbestos made features on the buildings Removal of loose asbestos debris Treatment/bonding of asbestos. Some of these activities will impact on bats where bat roosts are present in buildings as they could be disturbed, obstructed or destroyed through the above activities. Page 24

28 9 Advice and Recommendations 9. Advice and Recommendations 9.1 FURTHER SURVEY At this time no further survey is required of buildings C75, C76, MAG 307 and MAG 168 to inform the current programme of works as these have had bat roosts confirmed within them and the necessary precautionary approach to activities in or near them will be necessary. Additional building inspections will be required of any buildings not on the Asbestos Works Programme list (Appendix E) where activities are planned that could impact on bat roosts within buildings where they are present. Additional emergence (dusk)/re-entry (dawn) surveys may be required if a long period of time passes between these surveys and works to the buildings as bats are highly mobile species and can change roosts regularly throughout the year. Works or activities on site not assessed by this report will require to be assessed in the likely impacts of those activities on bat roosts at the Derwent Forest site and re-surveys may be required to verify previous results and to inform that latest scheme of works. It is advised that further surveys are undertaken of any building scheduled for demolition that has not been fully surveyed (i.e. building inspection and at least 3 dusk/dawn surveys) as part of this project to inform the current programme of works. It is advised that C76 is resurveyed prior to demolition. If any works are likely to impact on woodlands and trees on the Derwent Forest site surveys for bat roosts within trees or within the bat boxes on trees will be required prior to works commencing. It is recommended that the site is periodically resurveyed throughout the year on a rolling programme to keep knowledge of bat usage of the site up-to-date. This will ensure that ecological advice can be given immediately as any projects that may impact on them arise. 9.2 ASBESTOS WORKS PROGRAMME AND MITIGATION LICENSING It is advised that a European Protected Species development licence will be required from Natural England in order to demolish C76. This will be required as the demolition will result in the destruction of several bat roosts. An EPS licence application includes a detailed Method Statement describing how the works would be undertaken (in a manner that would avoid harming bats) and the measures that would be taken to compensate for the loss of the original roosts. The EPS licence application process can take up to ten weeks. Page 25

29 9 Advice and Recommendations For works requiring an EPS licence sufficient mitigation will be required to be in place to compensate and mitigate for the loss of roosts on the Derwent Forest site. In terms of the demolition of C76 and after discussions with the clients, suitable mitigation has been suggested as safeguarding an existing building near to C76 and enhancing this existing building for bats by incorporating additional roosting features for a range of bat species. This would need to be in place prior to the demolition of the building. It is advised that where any other demolition or activities that will result in the destruction or significant disturbance of a bat roost are planned (e.g. bonding asbestos in buildings where bat roosts exist), these activities will also need to be covered by a Natural England EPS licence. Consideration should be given to the long term conservation of bats and their roosts at the Derwent Forest site. Over time the buildings are deteriorating which could mean that conditions become less suitable for bats to roost on the site. The full demolition of all buildings on site may also be a long term aim. In these cases permanent structures will need to be constructed on site to safeguard the Derwent Forest site bat population. Although smaller projects (as detailed above) may only affect one or two buildings at a time, it will be necessary to consider the cumulative impacts of changes at the Derwent Forest site in terms of the conservation of the bat population. This is not only a requirement under the legal protection bats receive, but also a legal duty on statutory undertakers (which includes councils) to conserve biodiversity in the exercise of their functions METHODS OF WORKING Any works that are likely to impact on bats should be undertaken in September/October or April/May when bats are active, but not in maternity or hibernation roosts. The periods when bats are in maternity and hibernation roosts are the most sensitive times during the year when impacts can have a greater detrimental affect on bat populations. Where works are to be scheduled for the April/May period of the year particular care will be required in planning works where there is a risk of a maternity roost being present. At this time of year female bats can be pregnant with young and are more sensitive to disturbance from external factors which can result in the loss of that year s young which can be a significant negative impact on the local bat population. All activities should take place in daylight hours. If activities are undertaken at night lighting should be controlled as follows: o o Use low pressure sodium lamps instead of mercury and metal halide lamps, particularly on and near bat roosts. The type of lamp is preferred for their UV filtering properties, reducing light spillage and pollution; Directly light areas only where it is required in order to avoid light spillage onto roosts or foraging routes; Page 26

30 9 o o Accessories such as hoods and shields should be utilised to direct light into the desired work area; Limit the timing of light usage. It is likely that the works that entail boarding up of doorways and removing asbestos debris from the ground can be undertaken under a detailed Method Statement as the disturbance to bats is anticipated to be short-lived and not interfere with roosting bats. The Method Statement should be communicated to contractors via a toolbox talk by a suitably experienced ecologist who will be on site to supervise work where there are sensitivities concerning bat roosts. The boarding up of the doorways will need to ensure sufficient access gaps are incorporated within them to allow bats to access the buildings. As it is possible that pipistrelle, brown long eared and Myotis species could be roosting in any of the buildings the access gaps need to accommodate all these species. Access gaps should therefore be 150mm high x 450 mm wide to accommodate. (This will need to be designed with barn owls in mind who require a gap of 0.5 x 0.5 m although where barn owls are not known to be nesting it may be more sensible to install the bat access gap as barn owls predate bats) ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Where bunkers exist on site these could provide suitable hibernation roosts. Surveys could be undertaken to identify if this is the case as recommended above. However, hibernation roosts are important and in order to safeguard theses roosts bunkers could be fitted with grilles designed to allow bat access but prevent human access other than to monitor the structures. If any additional works or activities are proposed on site that could disturb bats or obstruct or damage bat roosts or is likely to result in significant loss of habitats these, will need to be assessed in relation to their anticipated impact on bats at the Derwent Forest site. Appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures will then need to be drawn up specifically with those issues in mind. General enhancement of the site for bats include: Increasing connectivity of semi-natural habitats, in particular enhancing the existing hedgerows through gapping up with native species and further native planting and linking to other habitats. This would enhance the site for bats and other species such as birds. The retention, maintenance through conservation management and extension of semi-natural habitats for foraging bats, such as broadleaved woodland and native scattered trees and unimproved grassland. Page 27

31 10 Bibliography 10. Bibliography Allchin L and Lee G (2003) Broughton Moor Vegetation Survey Entec UK Ltd Watson et al (2003) Broughton Moor: Protected Species & Ecological Mitigation Entec UK Ltd Bat Conservation Trust (2000). Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland : Bat Conservation Trust, London. Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines: Bat Conservation Trust, London. Billington G (2002) Preliminary Bat Survey and Assessment Broughton Moor Cumbria Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2002) Survey and Assessment of Results 2002 Draft Bat Mitigation Proposals Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2003) Bat Survey of Buildings Results 2003 Bat Mitigation Update Proposals Greena Ecological Consultancy Jerram R (2001) Ecological Assessment RNAD Broughton Moor National Biodiversity Network Gateway (2008). Interactive map of Bat (Chiroptera) Page accessed 27/05/2008. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature. Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (2008). MAGIC Interactive Map of Britain Page accessed 27/05/2008. Page 28

32 Appendix A Location Map Appendix A Location Map Site Page Appendix A1

33 Appendix B Site Map Appendix B Site Map Page Appendix B2

34 Appendix C Data Search Bat Species Results Appendix C Data Search Bat Species Results Page Appendix C1

35 Appendix D Summary of Results of Previous Surveys Appendix D Summary of Results of Previous Surveys See Attached File Page Appendix D1

36 Appendix E Buildings listed for Asbestos Remediation Appendix E Buildings listed for Asbestos Remediation Building No Scheduled Works 2009 C24 C45 C46 C47 C75 C76 C79 C95 C97 Mag 52 Mag 53 Mag 55 Remove AC wall panels Remove AC roof Remove AIB internal wall panels Remove AC roof and debris Remove AC canopy Remove AC switch cupboard Remove AIB internal wall panels Remove AC roof Remove AC switch cupboard Remove bitumen felt to windows and debris Remove AC sheets to roof Remove AIB internal wall panels Remove AC roof and debris Remove AC cladding Remove AC switch panel Remove AC canopy to porch roof Remove AC canopy to porch walls (All below ACMs to be removed and building then removed down to slab level.) Remove AC wall cladding external Remove AC internal panels Remove AC rainwater goods Remove AC valley gutter Remove lino to floor Remove AC panel roof lining Remove AC internal panels Remove AIB panels Remove AC canopy roof Remove AC canopy roof Remove AIB panels to door Remove AIB panels to door Remove AIB panel Page Appendix E2

37 Appendix E Buildings listed for Asbestos Remediation Building No Scheduled Works 2009 Mag 70 Mag 74 Mag 108 Mag 114 Mag 168 Mag 302 Mag 303 Mag 306 Mag 307A Mag 312 Mag 318 C5 C6 C7 C8 C10 C11 C36 C57 C67 C68 C69 C70 C71B Remove AIB panels to walls Remove AIB panels to wall Remove AIB panels Remove AIB panels Remove AC canopy Remove AC ceiling panels Remove AC floor debris Remove AC canopy Remove AC spouting Remove AC canopy Remove AC ceiling panels Remove AC debris to floor Remove AC roof Remove AC spouting Remove AC canopy Remove AC canopy splitter Remove AC residue Remove rope seal debris Remove rope seal debris Remove pipe lagging to internal Remove pipe lagging to ceiling Page Appendix E3

38 Appendix E Buildings listed for Asbestos Remediation Building No Scheduled Works 2009 C88(2) C89 C90 C91 C100 C100A Mag 01 Mag 02 Remove bitumen sealant to walls and debris Remove bitumen debris to external Remove bitumen adhesive to concrete Mag 03 Mag 04 Mag 05 Mag 06 Mag 08 Mag 10 Mag 11 Mag 13 Mag 14 Mag 16 Mag 17 Mag 18 Mag 19 Mag 20 Mag 21 Mag 22 Mag 26 Mag 27 Mag 28 Mag 29 Page Appendix E4

39 Appendix E Buildings listed for Asbestos Remediation Building No Scheduled Works 2009 Mag 30 Mag 33 Mag 34 Mag 35 Mag 36 Mag 37 Mag 39 Mag 40 Mag 41 Mag 44 Mag 46 Mag 47 Mag 50 Mag 51 Mag 56 Mag 57 Mag 58 Mag 59 Mag 60 Mag 61 Mag 62 Mag 65 Mag 67 Mag 69 Mag 71 Mag 72 Mag 73 Mag 74 Mag 75 Mag 76 Mag 78 Page Appendix E5