Bat Activity Survey Report Rivenwood

Transcription

1 Bat Activity Survey Report October 206

2 Bat Activity Surveys Quality information Document name Ref Prepared for Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by Date Bat Survey Report Jenny Jones Graduate Ecologist Conor Reid Senior Graduate Ecologist Eleanor Ballard Associate Director 7 October 206 Revision history Revision Revision date Details Name Position This document has been prepared by AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Limited for the sole use of our client (the Client ) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Limited. AECOM

3 Contents Introduction.... Background....2 Aims and objectives....3 Quality assurance... 2 Legislation Habitats Directive / Habitat Regulations Biodiversity policy National planning policy Methods Activity surveys Data collection and analysis Limitations Results Activity surveys Bat emergence/re-entry Discussion Activity surveys Bat emergence/re-entry Development on site Mitigation General principles Mitigation measures References...0 Figures... Appendix Bat records...2 Appendix 2 Mitigation...9 AECOM

4 Introduction. Background AECOM was commissioned by Iain Stewart Ltd. Architect on behalf of their client to conduct bat activity surveys to inform a planning application for works at their site. The approximate central Irish Grid reference for the site is J and the boundary is shown in Figure. The planning application is for the construction of a distributor road joining the Donaghadee Road and Movilla Road. This will provide access for phase 2 of residential housing development... Site description The development site is located approximately 2.5 km northeast of Newtownards town centre and largely comprises farmland of improved pasture and arable fields bounded by hedgerows with occasional trees. The site is bound to the north by Donaghadee Road, to the south by Movilla Road, to the west by residential housing, and the east by an agricultural landscape..2 Aims and objectives The objectives of the activity surveys are to determine: - If bats are present on the site; - Which bat species use the site; - What the activity levels of bats are on the site; and, - How bats are using the site..3 Quality assurance This project has been completed in line with AECOM s Integrated Management System (IMS). Our IMS places great emphasis on professionalism, technical excellence, its quality as well as covering all aspects of environmental and Health and Safety management. All staff members are committed to establishing and maintaining our accreditation to the relevant international standards namely BS EN ISO 900:2008 and 400:2004 and BS OHSAS 800:2007. In addition our IMS requires careful selection and monitoring of the performance of all sub consultants and contractors. AECOM

5 Bat Activity Surveys 2 Legislation 2. Habitats Directive / Habitat Regulations All bats in Northern Ireland are listed on Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). The Habitats Directive is transposed by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 995 (as amended), which provide national legislation for the protection of bats. Under the regulations it is an offence to: (a) (b) (c) Deliberately to capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a European protected species; Deliberately disturb such an animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; Deliberately disturb such an animal in such a way as to be likely to: i) affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which it belongs; or ii) iii) impair its ability to breed or reproduce, or rear or care for its young; or impair its ability to hibernate or migrate. (d) (e) Deliberately obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal; or Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal. 2.2 Biodiversity policy The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy (205) was developed to stop the loss of and enhance biodiversity. Part of the Strategy is a list of priority species, especially those that are rare, vulnerable or declining, selected based on their requirement of conservation programmes. The majority of species listed can be vulnerable to development and should be considered during planning applications. All bat species recorded in Northern Ireland appear on this list. Additionally, an all-ireland species action plan was produced in 2008 and covers all bat species previously recorded in Northern Ireland. Bat species recorded in Northern Ireland are listed in Table 2.Error! Reference source not found.. Table 2. Bat species occurring within Northern Ireland. name Scientific nomenclature Echolocation mean frequency of max energy (khz) Median emergence time (minutes after sunset)* Usual habitat type Pipistrellus pygmaeus Woodland edge and riparian Pipistrellus pipistrellus Woodland edge, parkland, and hedgerows Nathusius Pipistrellus nathusii Woodland edge and water Daubenton s bat Myotis daubentonii Watercourses, lakes, pond, and riparian trees Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus Parks, meadows, woodland, and gardens 2 AECOM

6 name Scientific nomenclature Echolocation mean frequency of max energy (khz) Median emergence time (minutes after sunset)* Usual habitat type Natterer s bat Myotis nattereri Leisler s bat Nyctalus leisleri Relatively dense woodland, also over water Above lakes, meadows, and parkland Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus Dense habitats, woodland, parkland and gardens * Median emergence times form Jones and Rydell (994). 2.3 National planning policy Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 Natural heritage (203) states the Department s planning policy for nature conservation for Northern Ireland. It helps to protect designated areas and advises on the treatment of nature conservation issues in development plans. In addition, it outlines the criteria that Planning NI employs when processing planning applications which might affect nature conservation interests, and to which developers should have regard when preparing proposals. This newly revised version outlines the importance that is now placed on Northern Ireland Priority Species and Habitats within the planning process. AECOM 3

7 Bat Activity Surveys 3 Methods 3. Activity surveys Bat surveys were carried out following standard methodology in accordance with NIEA Specific Requirements (NIEA, 204) and recommendations and good practice as highlighted in Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition), produced by the Bat Conservation Trust (Collins, 206). Dusk and predawn activity surveys were conducted by experienced ecologists Conor Reid, Jenny Jones, and Paul Lynas with assistance provided by Michael Gillespie (environmental scientist). Three surveyors were present during any one survey event. Following Collins (206), dusk activity surveys commence at sunset and end at least two hours after sunset (or up to three hours if activity levels are high), while pre-dawn surveys commence two hours before sunrise, ending at sunrise, or later if bats are still active. Appropriate transect routes and listening stops were determined prior to the start of the initial survey. Transects were planned to incorporate the areas to be impacted. Three surveyors conducted activity surveys simultaneously, with transect routes walked across the entire site. For clarity, the fields included in the transects were numbered -2 and have been indicatively marked in Figure. Using detectors, the surveyors listened for bats and on hearing a bat, made an attempt to identify flight direction and bat behaviour. During the activity surveys, close attention was paid to hedgerows and treelines particularly those associated with linear features such as hedgerows and those with connections to the wider countryside. Additionally, existing buildings and trees were monitored to advise on further potential roosting locations. All surveys were digitally recorded. Equipment used for surveys included BatBox Duet ultrasonic detectors recording in frequency division onto a Roland R-05 recorder and Zoom Handy H2 digital recorders, and a Petterson D240x detector recording in time expansion onto a Roland R-05 recorder. Weather details were recorded using a standard thermometer and descriptions of other conditions were recorded subjectively. 3.2 Data collection and analysis All survey data was initially recorded onto survey maps in the field before being digitised and transferred into GIS information using MapInfo, prior to being transferred to a Computer Aided Design (CAD) system to enable high quality drawings to be produced. Data collected during surveys were stored and subsequently analysed using BatSound specialist software, to identify any bats not detected in the field by the surveyors and to confirm species identifications made in the field. 3.3 Limitations No constraints were identified on site to limit the findings of this report. 4 AECOM

8 4 Results 4. Activity surveys Two dusk surveys and one pre-dawn survey were conducted throughout the site during suitable weather conditions for bat survey. The location of transects walked by the surveyors are shown in Figure by a dashed orange line. Weather conditions and sunset/sunrise times were all recorded (Table 4.). Table 4. Weather recorded during bat surveys. Time Temperature ( C) Cloud cover (%) Wind description Precipitation (Sunset 20:36) Start Gentle Breeze N/A End 5 00 Gentle Breeze N/A (Sunset 9:40) Start 6 00 Still N/A End 6 00 Still N/A (Sunrise 06:55) Start 5 00 Still Mist End 5 00 Still Mist A full breakdown of the activity recorded is outlined in Appendix (Table A.). A summary is provided in Table 4.2. The main locations of bat activity are shown in Figure. Table 4.2 Bat species and their activity and total passes across all surveys. Species Total passes Location and activity 63 Leisler s bat 36 9 Unidentified 4 This was the most commonly observed bat on the site. s were observed both commuting and foraging within the site. Social calls were also recorded. Second most commonly recorded bat with occurrence across the entire site. A number were observed foraging within the site, but most were not directly observed, were commuting at height over the site and appeared to be traversing through the wider environment. Also observed across the site. s were observed primarily commuting across the site, and, to a lesser extent, foraging within the site. These individuals were not identified to species level. This was either because the recorded calls were too faint to positively identify them, or because they were recorded alongside other bats and may have shifted their peak frequency to outside of their known average. 4.. Bat activity patterns Three species were observed during the surveys: Leisler s bat, common, and soprano. Fourteen unspecified bats were also recorded. Bat activity was recorded throughout the site and commuting, foraging, and social behaviour was observed. was largely along linear features AECOM 5

9 Bat Activity Surveys such as along hedgerows. Foraging activity within the site boundary was also predominantly associated with linear features such as hedgerows. Activity was highest during the August dusk survey (59 passes recorded across the site) than the September dusk/pre-dawn surveys (37 and 36 passes recorded, respectively, across the site). Leisler s bats were the first species to be heard during the dusk surveys. During the August dusk survey, a Leisler s bat was observed 7 minutes after sunset and during the September dusk survey the first Leisler s bat was observed 25 minutes after sunset. This species emerges early (Table 2.Error! Reference source not found.) and this could be indicative of a roost in the wider landscape, though not necessarily within the site. The majority of the Leisler s bat passes (36 in total across all surveys) were not directly observed and were largely recorded commuting (likely at height) across the site with some foraging en route. s were the most commonly encountered bat with 63 passes in total across all surveys. These bats were observed commuting and foraging along field boundaries. Three potentially emerged from a property adjacent to the site, south of field 0. Nineteen soprano passes were recorded within the site across surveys. The majority of these bats were not directly observed, and were predominantly recorded commuting, likely along the strong linear features, with some foraging en route. 4.2 Bat emergence/re-entry Although emergence/re-entry surveys were not conducted, an effort was made to pay attention to buildings adjacent to the site or mature trees within or directly adjacent to the site for evidence of roosting. Bats were not observed emerging from or returning to any trees within the site. Three bats (two common and one unidentified (though presumably common) ) were, however, observed potentially emerging from a residential dwelling adjacent to the site (Figure RL0), (south of Field 0) approximately minutes after sunset. These times fall at the median emergence times for the species (Table 2.). 6 AECOM

10 5 Discussion 5. Activity surveys Bat activity was considered to be relatively low across the site, but was consistently recorded across surveys. During dusk surveys activity was recorded throughout the survey period. During the dawn survey, activity was recorded until approximately 30 minutes prior to sunrise. The mean times elapsed between bat passes during the August dusk, September dusk, and September dawn were approximately 5 minutes, 5 minutes 40 seconds, and 4 minutes 0 seconds respectively. Within the site no particular hot spots of activity were observed, as activity was distributed throughout the entire site. However the linear features within the site such treelines and hedgerows were all well used as commuting corridors. 5.2 Bat emergence/re-entry An assessment of features with bat roosting potential was made by ATEC during a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of the ( ATEC, 206). The result of this assessment is contained in a separate report. Text relating to bat roost potential is summarised here. Mature trees occur occasionally throughout the site and are associated with field boundaries and are considered to have moderate bat roosting potential (ATEC, 206). In order to accommodate the access road for the proposed development, a small number of these hedgerows and trees will be directly impacted. No tree roosts were identified during the activity surveys, it is considered unlikely therefore that destruction of roosts will occur. However, the surveys highlighted a potential roost adjacent to the site. Three bats were observed potentially emerging from a house directly adjacent to the site (as presented in Figure ) and then using the boundary hedgerows as commuting routes to the wider landscape. Although the development will not impact the existing residential area, removal/impacts on boundary features of the site may have an effect on the local bat population and the integrity of a potential roost outside of the site. 5.3 Development on site The site primarily consists of grassland of low conservation value with boundary hedgerows of low and moderate conservation value at site level and occasional trees of high conservation value at a site level (ATEC, 206). The site is proposed for a residential housing development and distributor road which is likely to significantly affect numerous hedgerows and several mature trees across the site which is currently used by commuting and foraging bats. However, the planned development will contain features which could also be used by bats in the future. In the long term, new houses may provide excellent opportunities for bats to find crevices and cracks within which to roost. The swamp area of the site (Field 2) is scheduled to be retained with additional native tree and shrub plantings to provide a screen between it and the development. Further screen planting to rural boundaries is also scheduled to the east of Field 8. Section 6 outlines prescribed mitigation to protect the integrity of bat commuting routes and foraging habitats with the site. As some trees within the site have been identified has having potential for roosting bats, additional measures that should be considered to improve habitat for bats within the new development are also suggested. AECOM 7

11 Bat Activity Surveys 6 Mitigation 6. General principles DOE (205) guidelines require all works to comply with legislation and to minimise impacts on protected species when developing on sites where they are present. Firstly avoidance of impacts on bats and their roosts should be implemented through proposal design. This is likely to involve appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard the bats and their foraging habitat. Where bats are present on or near a site the following mitigation measures should be applied as a minimum. The DOE (205) guidelines state: - Retain all roosting sites and foraging corridors were possible; - Retain hedgerows, watercourses and woodland habitat; - Suitable lighting design should minimise light spill to habitat features and concentrate artificial light only where required; - Native species planting should be incorporated into the development. This should connect to existing lines of trees and hedgerows in the surrounding area; and, - All watercourses should be retained as a wildlife corridor; additional planting of native trees will provide a dark corridor for foraging bats. Bats were recorded commuting across the site, along the linear features, and foraging within the site boundary. This Section outlines mitigation measures that should be considered in relation to the bats on site and the guidelines as presented above. If, during development works at the site, bat roosts are found, all works must stop immediately and Natural Environment Division (NED; formerly known as NIEA) should be consulted. 6.2 Mitigation measures 6.2. Retention of hedgerows Proposed landscape plans identify the retention of several hedgerows, primarily along the site boundaries but also hedgerows which traverse the site. This will retain the majority of mature trees that occur in the central section of the site Lighting External (i.e. street) lighting across the site should be carefully considered to ensure perimeter structures and linear features remain dark, wildlife corridors. Both during construction and post development, lighting designs should minimise light spill to habitat features and concentrate artificial light only where required. Lighting must not illuminate any habitat features or any bat roost (i.e. bat box erected as mitigation) locations. Where lighting may be installed as a result of the proposed development, the following generic recommendations are proposed: - Lighting should be minimised wherever possible in terms of number of lights and the power of the lights (lux level). Using powerful lighting on wildlife corridors can, for some species, effectively sever connectivity; - Corridors identified as dark corridors should not be subject to light spill greater than lux; 8 AECOM

12 - Directional lighting, facing and located away from the surrounding vegetation should be used. This avoidance is particularly relevant to any mature trees on or adjacent to the site; and, - Lighting should be turned off when not in use except to meet the minimum requirements for Health and Safety. Bats are known to rely on visual cues in addition to using echolocation for both commuting and foraging, and various studies have revealed that bat vision functions better in low light. Luminance can disrupt bat activity by interrupting vision. Therefore, impacts of lighting on bats should be minimised both during and post development Provision of bat commuting and foraging habitats Where possible existing vegetation should be retained or reinstated and enhanced. However, it is envisaged that trees and hedgerows throughout the site along the proposed route for the distributor road will be lost. As a precautionary measure, where these trees require removal, the recommended period for felling, to limit damage to bat roosts, is autumn (September November inclusive). Trees should be segmentally felled and left for 24 hours to allow any bats to escape prior to removal or chipping. Bat mitigation should be fully integrated into the design of the new development, including planting of native trees and hedgerows particularly where trees/hedgerows are proposed for removal, if space allows. Such features would augment habitat for invertebrates, which would in-turn provide additional foraging for bats. The proposed landscape plans identifies several locations where extensive planting of native species will be included. This includes an 8m planting buffer which traverses the northern boundary of the proposed development limit Provision of external roosting features No bat roosts were identified on the site however trees with bat roost potential were recorded on site and a number of these will be lost. To compensate for the loss and to encourage bat roosts in the future, it is recommended that 4 no. bat boxes suitable for bats of the Pipistrellus genus should be erected within the site, mounted on trees to be retained, in appropriately post-construction lit conditions to provide roosting locations for bats in the area. An ecologist can recommend on the final locations for bat box erection; additional information is available online at the Bat Conservation Trust ( Bat boxes should be installed on mature trees prior to work commencing on site. Bat boxes suitable for common and soprano species should be positioned to face south, south east, or south west and at heights no less than 4m above ground level. Suitably experienced ecologists should oversee the installation of the boxes. All personnel should wear gloves to reduce transmission of human pheromones, which may reduce or delay uptake of boxes by bats. Bat boxes are available commercially from a variety of suitable outlets. Some suitable woodcrete boxes are shown in Appendix 2 Mitigation, available from the NHBS website ( Provision of internal roosting features If preferred, instead of provision of external roosting features and depending upon the design of the new buildings, features could be included to accommodate bats. Access points could be included in tile roofs that will allow bats to use the building for roosting. Regardless of whether access points are included, the use of breathable roofing membranes (BRM) anywhere within the structure should be avoided. BRM are known to trap and kill bats and have been responsible for high levels of mortality, potentially destroying an entire colony. AECOM 9

13 Bat Activity Surveys 7 References ATEC (206) An Ecological Assessment of a Site of Proposed Development located between Donaghadee Road and Movilla Road, Newtownards, Unpublished Report to Iain Stewart Ltd, Architect. Collins, J. (206) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Department of the Environment (NI) Northern Ireland Environment Agency, (204) Bat Survey - Specific Requirements. Department of the Environment (NI) (205) Valuing Nature A Biodiversity Strategy for Northern Ireland to DOE, Belfast. Department of the Environment Planning and Environment (205) Priority Species: Advice for Planning Officers and Applicants Seeking Planning Permission for Land Which May Impact On Priority Species. DOE Planning & Environment (205) Bats. Advice for planning officers and applicants seeking planning permission for land which may affect bats. DOE, Belfast. Jones, G. and Rydell, J. (994) 'Foraging Strategy and Predation Risk as Factors Influencing Emergence Time in Echolocating Bats', Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 346(38), pp Mitchell-Jones, A.J. and McLeish, A.P. (Eds) (2004) The Bat Workers Manual (3rd Edition), Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. 0 AECOM

14 Figures AECOM

15 R:\LANDATA\ RIVENWOOD NEWTONARDS\02 CAD\FIGURE RIVENWOOD BATS_RECOVER KEY BAT EVIDENCE: Pipistrelle Pipistrelle Leisler's Bat Unspecified Pipistrelle KEY Red line boundry Herges Transect Field reference number Potential Bat Roost location with reference number (number refers to the Report) Bat heard not seen where flight direction was unknown (marked as colour that corresponds to appropriate bat species) Project Title Bat Survey Drawing Title RL0 Client A3 AECOM Internal Project No. NTS BAT ACTIVITY SURVEY 23 Aug & 4/5 Sept 206 AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Beechill House Beechill Road Belfast BT8 7RP T: +44 (0)

16 Bat Activity Surveys Appendix Bat records Table A.: Bat Activity Records Date Time Species Frequency (khz) Activity Count Location and notes Location Reference :53:00 Leisler's bat 2 Faintly heard not seen from NW corner of field :: :3:00 47 Foraging 48 Flew along western and southern hedgerowrowrows of field 2 3 Very faintly heard not seen from northern hedgerowrow in field :5:00 46, social calls Quick pass around junction between field and :6:00 Leisler's bat 2 Heard not seen at junction between field and :2:00 43 Heard not seen along western hedgerowrow in field :3:00 Pipistrelle sp. 49 Faintly heard not seen along eastern hedgerowrow of field :39:00 46 Faintly heard not seen from southern hedgerowrow in field 2 3 Faintly heard not seen :42:00 46 from southern hedgerowrow in field :45:00 Leisler's bat Faintly heard not seen from SW corner of field 2; not recorded :55:00 Leisler's bat 28 large tree to north of field :06:00 Leisler's bat 25 NW corner of field :09:00 48 NW corner of field ::00 47 Faintly heard not seen from NE corner of field :3:00 43 Faintly eard not seen at junction between field 9 AECOM

17 Date Time Species Frequency (khz) Activity Count Location and notes Location Reference and :7:00 Leisler's bat 23 northern hedgerow in field :7:00 Pipistrelle sp. northern hedgerow in field 2; not recoded :8:00 47 northern hedgerowrow in field :9:00 47 Foraging Along northern hedgerowrow in field :9:00 Leisler's bat 23 along northern hedgerowrow in field :2:00 44 along northern hedgerowrow in field :29:00 52 Foraging, social calls southern hedgerowrow in field :30:00 Pipistrelle sp. 50 SW corner of field 2; not recorded :33:00 Leisler's bat 23 Heard not seen western hedgerow in field :06:38 47 Potential emergence, commuting Possibly emerged from house outside site boundary RL :07:32 48 Potential emergence, commuting Possibly emerged from house outside site boundary RL :08:38 Pipistrelle sp. Potential emergence, commuting Possibly emerged from house outside site boundary; not recorded RL :09:05 48 Faintly heard not seen from west of field :2:46 Leisler's bat 23 north of field :24: Along eastern boundary of field :24: :26:50 46 Along lane in field 3 53 Heard not seen :34:57 46 NE 4 AECOM

18 Bat Activity Surveys Date Time Species Frequency (khz) Activity Count Location and notes of field 8 Location Reference :37: :46: :02:06 Pipistrelle sp Foraging :4:6 Leisler's bat :8: :8: :22: :22:2 43 Not recorded; heard not seen along eastern boundary of field 0 Heard not seen fro north of field Along northern boundary of field 2 south of field 2 south of field 2 45 Heard not seen 48 Foraging Heard not seen 45, foraging 2 Continuously for two and a half minutes along SW boundary of field :00:20 Leisler's bat :20:07 Leisler's bat :2:20 Leisler's bat :22:28 Leisler's bat :35: :38: :43: :46: NE corner of field 6 NW corner of field 8 NW corner of field 8 NW corner of field 8 SE boundary of field 7 SE boundary of field 7 western boundary of field 7 55 Heard not seen :49:8 Leisler's bat :56: :08: :: :20:33 Pipistrelle sp northern boundary of field 7 SW corner of field 6 eastern boundary of field 3 eastern boundary of field 3 Very faintly heard from northern boundary of field AECOM

19 Date Time Species Frequency (khz) Activity Count Location and notes Location Reference :27:32 52 Very faintly heard from northern boundary of field :30:44 53 Very faintly heard from NE corner of field :20:24 47 Along northern boundary of field :24:34 45 Foraging Along boundary delinating field 4 and :4:7 47 Foraging Along boundary delinating field 4 and :4:54 Pipistrelle sp. 50 Foraging Along boundary delinating field 4 and :44:54 48 Foraging Along boundary delinating field 4 and :47:3 48 eastern boundary of field :0:39 52 southern boundary of field :2:27 52 southern boundary of field :4: 53 southern boundary of field :9:38 48 western boundary of field :25:26 46 NW corner of field :05:08 Leisler's bat 2 western boundary of field :9:22 Leisler's bat 24 Heard not seen :24:57 47 Heard not seen :3:46 Leisler's bat :33:5 53 Foraging :38:2 Leisler's bat :42:27 52 north of field 8 Along northern boundary of field 8 Very faintly heard not seen from south of field 8 east of field AECOM

20 Bat Activity Surveys Date Time Species Frequency (khz) :49: Leisler's bat 26 Foraging Activity Count Location and notes SE of field 7 Location Reference :5:6 Leisler's bat 27 Briefly heard not seen :2: :6:28 52 Flew along northern boundary of field 7 54 Heard not seen :8:2 Leisler's bat 24 western boundary of field :39: :39:40 Leisler's bat :4: :43:07 Pipistrelle sp. 46 Heard not seen 3 Not recorded; flew toward house 46 Heard not seen :5:53 Leisler's bat :53: :58: :04: :6: :9: Faintly and briefly heard not seen Along lane delieating fields 0 and Very briefly heard not seen Along northern boundary of field 9 Along western boundary of field 9 Along lane north of field 0 46 Heard not seen :20:36 Leisler's bat 24 Heard not seen :22:22 47 Along hedgerow delineating fields 0 and :23:00 48 Heard not seen :34:25 46 Heard not seen :24: :29:9 Leisler's bat 26 Foraging :37:4 52 northern boundary of field 4 northern boundary of field 4 eastern corner of field AECOM

21 Date Time Species :54: :55: :57:5 Pipistrelle sp. Frequency (khz) Activity Count Location and notes Social calls :57:36 Leisler's bat :57: :02: :0: :0: :: :4: :8: Foraging 56 Foraging 48 Foraging 46 Foraging 45 boundary delinating field 4 and 5 boundary delinating field 4 and 6 eastern boundary of field 4 eastern boundary of field 4 eastern boundary of field 4 northern boundary of field 5 field 4 field 4; several minutes field 4; several minutes Along eastern boundary of field 2 Flew from southern boundary of field 2 into field 3 Location Reference :28: :37: :45: :55:7 Pipistrelle sp. 48 Briefly heard not seen 2 44 Heard not seen 49 Briefly heard not seen 48 Heard not seen :57:34 Leisler's bat 22 Heard not seen :07: :8:29 45 Heard not seen 46 Foraging Heard not seen :56: :0:5 Leisler's bat 25 Along northern boundary of field 9 NW corner of field :03:26 Leisler's bat 30 NW 5 AECOM

22 Bat Activity Surveys Date Time Species Frequency (khz) Activity Count Location and notes Location Reference corner of field :05: :2: :9:32 Leisler's bat :9: :20:46 06:20:48 06:2:50 06:22:30 06:23:34 06:23:34 06:24: Leisler's bat 25 Foraging Leisler's bat 23 Leisler's bat 23 Leisler's bat Leisler's bat 24 Along western boundary of field 9 Along northern boundary of field 0 south of field 0 Along southern boundary field 0 south of field 0 south of field 0 southern corner of field 0 southern corner of field southern corner of field 2 southern corner of field 3 southern corner of field AECOM

23 Appendix 2 Mitigation Woodcrete boxes Woodcrete is a mixture of wood and cement. They are very durable and can last many years maintenance free. They also provide a stable environment as their construction is well insulated from heat and cold. The mix of components ensures durability with lightness. 2F Schwegler Bat Box (General Purpose) (Model:7484 NHBS) Suitable for smaller bats found within the site. FF Schwegler Bat Box (Model: 7482 NHBS) Suitable for smaller bats found within the site. AECOM

24 Bat Activity Surveys About AECOM AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is built to deliver a better world. We design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations in more than 50 countries. As a fully integrated firm, we connect knowledge and experience across our global network of experts to help clients solve their most complex challenges. From high-performance buildings and infrastructure, to resilient communities and environments, to stable and secure nations, our work is transformative, differentiated and vital. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM companies had revenue of approximately US$9 billion during the 2 months ended June 30, 205. See how we deliver what others can only imagine at Contact Dr. Eleanor Ballard Associate Director, D +44-(0) M +44-(0) eleanor.ballard@aecom.com aecom.com AECOM