Picket Piece Bat Report

Transcription

1 Picket Piece Bat Report Wates Development Ltd December 2009 WSP Document Reference Footer Title Tony Prior MIEEM

2 QM Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Draft for comment For issue Date November th December 2009 Prepared by Signature Tony Prior and Dr S Holloway AMA Ltd Tony Prior and Dr S Holloway AMA Ltd Checked by Angela Bond WSPE Ltd Angela Bond WSPE Ltd Signature Authorised by Joanne Gough WSPE Ltd Joanne Gough WSPE Ltd Signature Project number File reference WSP Environment & Energy Mountbatten House Basing View Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 4HJ Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0)

3 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 Introduction 2 2 Methodology 3 3 Results 5 4 Evaluation 9 5 Recommendations 10 6 Conclusion 12 References & Bibliography 13 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Map showing transects, sample points and anabat passes Summary of Bat Activity Important foraging and commuting areas

4 Executive Summary This report presents the findings of building inspections, emergence/dawn re-entry and bat activity surveys at Picket Piece, undertaken by Andrew McCarthy Associates Ltd on behalf of WSP Environmental Ltd. This report has been prepared to inform the masterplanning phase of the proposed development of the site and to provide baseline information for an Environmental Impact Assessment of the scheme. The emergence and dawn surveys confirmed one building (Building 3) as a Myotis, long-eared bat and possible serotine roost. This roost was suspected to be primarily a transitional roost, although an internal inspection would be required in order to ascertain whether it is also used as a maternity roost. Overall the surveys recorded at least five bat species over the site and key commuting routes and foraging areas have been identified. A number of residential houses shown to be within the ecological survey area could not be surveyed due to access restrictions. It is our understanding that the current proposals for the site involve the retention of all residential houses. However, should the proposals change such that these houses would be affected by development works they will need to be surveyed externally and internally to establish their potential to support roosting bats. Specific recommendations are given to retain or replace identified bat roosts, commuting routes and foraging areas. A European Protected Species (EPS) licence would be required from Natural England if the development is to significantly affect the confirmed bat roost in Building 3. A successful licence application will require the provision of a replacement roost that is suitable for Myotis, long-eared and serotine bats. Recommendations are made to retain areas of habitat that were found to support high bat activity. This includes open habitat surrounded by hedgerows / woodland edge and an overgrown hedgerow immediately south of the railway embankment Picket Piece Bat Report 1

5 1 Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND This report presents the findings of a bat survey conducted at Picket Piece, Andover. The survey assessed bat activity within suitable foraging habitat and possible commuting routes, and included inspections of all accessible buildings for evidence of bat roosts. The exact red-line application boundary had not been determined at the onset of surveys and therefore an ecological survey area has been identified for the site. This represents the maximum extent of any potential application boundary of the site. The bat survey covered all accessible land within the ecological survey area as depicted by a red-line in Figures 1-3. For the purpose of this report, the ecological survey area is referred to as the site The site is located in the east of Andover and covers approximately 40 ha, east of Walworth Industrial Estate and centred at OS Grid Reference SU The site comprises predominantly residential properties and small fields. Habitats on site include outgrown native hedgerows, rank grassland and mature trees. The site is bounded to all sides by large agricultural fields. The Andover to Basingstoke railway line runs along the northern boundary Foraging habitats, commuting routes and potential roosts considered suitable for bats were recorded during a Phase 1 habitat survey of the application site, by WSP Environmental Ltd in May 2009 and reported in July (WSPE, July 2009). As a consequence Andrew McCarthy Associates (AMA) Ltd was instructed by WSP Environmental Ltd in July 2009 to undertake emergence/dawn surveys on buildings with bat roosting potential, determine the bat species assemblage present and establish patterns of bat foraging and commuting activity across the site Picket Piece Bat Report 2

6 2 Methodology 2.1 DESK STUDY Hampshire Biological Information Centre (HBIC) was contacted by WSP Environmental in June 2009 for archive bat records within 5 km of the proposed development site. 2.2 BUILDING INSPECTION Building inspections were undertaken by Tony Prior MIEEM, Dr James Cook MIEEM (Natural England bat licence no ) and Dr Ben Garnett MIEEM, consultants with AMA Ltd on 23 July The inspections included one residential house and a number of outhouses and sheds (as shown on Figure 1). All buildings were inspected externally and internally (where possible) for field evidence of roosting bats including droppings, urine staining, feeding remains, potential roosting/access points and individual bats. Where necessary, an endoscope was used to facilitate the inspection of crevices Surveys did not include twelve residential houses that were shown to be within the ecological survey area since these buildings are not considered likely to fall within the development footprint of the scheme proposal and therefore access for internal inspection was not possible The poultry farm in the south-west of the site was excluded from the building inspection as none of the buildings associated with the poultry farm have the potential to support roosting bats. 2.3 EVENING EMERGENCE/ACTIVITY AND DAWN SURVEY Surveys were undertaken by Tony Prior MIEEM, Dr James Cook MIEEM (Natural England bat licence no ), Dr Ben Garnett MIEEM, Andrew McCarthy CEnv MIEEM (Natural England bat licence no ), Alastair Campbell MIEEM (Natural England bat licence no ), Sophie Miller CEnv MIEEM, Gregor Neeve and Kittie Straghan Evening and dawn surveys were undertaken on the 23 rd July, 24 th August and 22 nd September. Evening emergence/activity surveys commenced 15 minutes before sunset. After approximately one hour the surveyors commenced an activity survey which continued for a further two hours. The activity survey comprised walking a set transect and stopping at four pre-determined sample points for two separate periods of 15 minutes. Dawn surveys commenced 2 hours before sunrise and ended 15 minutes after. Surveyors were strategically positioned across the site, including around many of the buildings, so as to be able to observe any bats leaving or entering a roost. Surveyors were all equipped with a Duet (Batbox Ltd, Steyning, West Sussex) combined frequency division and heterodyne bat detector, connected to a digital recording device All observed bat activity was recorded on a detailed plan; noting the time, location and, where possible, the location of emergence/re-entry, direction of flight, species and behaviour of the bat i.e. commuting, foraging, social calling An extra surveyor was used in the final (September) survey. As a consequence of this there are four supplementary sample points on this survey which are illustrated in Figure 1. The data from these points is used to provide further information about general bat activity, and average bat activity data from these points is gathered solely from the September survey Temperature, wind speed/direction and cloud cover were recorded at the beginning and end of the survey, along with any significant weather changes during the survey e.g. heavy showers After completion of each survey session, the digital bat recordings were analysed using BatScan v8.7 (Batbox Ltd, Steyning, West Sussex) sonogram analysis software to confirm species identification and the field map was digitised using MapInfo v9.0 (PB MapInfo Corporation, New York) Access restrictions due to land agreements and health and safety reasons (horses present in fields) are shown in Figure In addition to the above, remote detectors comprising Anabat II (Titley Electronics, Ballina NSW, Australia) frequency division bat detectors connected to ZCAIM (Titley Electronics, Ballina NSW, Australia) data recording units were used to continuously record bat activity at two fixed locations within the site for one night per month from in July, Picket Piece Bat Report 3

7 August and September. Recordings were obtained for the following nights: 23 rd July, 24 th August, and 22 nd September After completion of each survey session, the digital bat recordings were analysed using AnalookW v3.3q (Corben, 2006) Anabat data analysis software Picket Piece Bat Report 4

8 3 Results 3.1 DESK STUDY The following nine bat species have been recorded within 5km of the proposed development site: Serotine Eptesicus serotinus Whiskered/ Brandt s Myotis mystacinus/myotis brandtii Daubenton s Myotis daubentonii Natterer s Myotis nattereri Noctule Nyctalus noctula Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Long-eared bat Plecotus spp. Greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum It was not possible to derive from the data whether any known roosts are present. 3.2 BUILDING INSPECTION The results of the building inspection are displayed in Table 1. Table 1: Building inspection results Building 1 Description: Wooden derelict out-house, with concrete floor and 1m high breeze block walls. Bitumen felt roof and wooden fascia boards. Two of the three compartments accessible. Potential Bat Features: Large entrance in middle compartment, gaps behind fascia boards and under roof lining throughout provide access points. However not particularly good roosting opportunities for crevice-dwelling species. Negligible bat potential. Bat Evidence: No evidence found, however one compartment was not accessible Picket Piece Bat Report 5

9 Building 2 Description: One storey hut with roof void, in dilapidated condition, used as a hay barn. Wooden cladding on walls and double skinned corrugated asbestos roof, both with many gaps. Potential Bat Features: Access points between wooden cladding and roofing, at roof apex on both gable ends, broken windows provide large entrances. Large roof void with access points from ground floor. Possibly too exposed, but walls also have internal cavities. Moderate bat potential. Bat Evidence: No evidence found, although roof void could not be accessed Building 3 Description: Modern brick bungalow with concrete tiles on a pitched roof. There is a flat roof at the back and a two storey section at the front with some hanging tiles. Potential Bat Features: Hanging tiles, gaps in lead flashing, under ridge tiles and at the front gable apex. Moderate bat potential. Bat Evidence: No evidence found through external survey, although no internal inspection was permitted. This building is a confirmed bat roost - please see emergence survey results at paragraph below. Building 4 Description: Modern garage with block and brick walls, concrete tiles on a pitched roof and wooden cladding on the gable ends. Potential Bat Features: Dovecote at front, access points under eaves at each corner of the building. Good condition of building ensured that there were no crevices/holes for bats to roost in. Low bat potential. Bat Evidence: No evidence found, although no internal inspection was permitted Picket Piece Bat Report 6

10 Buildings 5a,b and c Description: Collection of storage buildings ranging from good to dilapidated condition. Wooden, corrugated iron and asbestos materials. Potential Bat Features: Access points in buildings, buildings did not contain suitable crevices/roosting perches for bats. Low bat potential Bat Evidence: No evidence found, although no internal inspection was permitted. One precautionary emergence survey was undertaken to confirm absence. 3.3 EMERGENCE/DAWN RE-ENTRY SURVEYS No bats were recorded emerging or re-entering Buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5. Building 2 had moderate bat activity around it, in particular serotine and common pipistrelle At least one Myotis bat (probable whiskered/brandts), two long-eared bats and a possible serotine were recorded emerging and re-entering Building 3 during the August survey. The access point for all recorded bats was through a small gap at the gable apex, below the soffit. 3.4 ACTIVITY SURVEYS Transects Transect routes and sample point locations are presented in Figure At least five species of bat were recorded during the surveys. In order of abundance these were: Common pipistrelle Serotine Noctule Myotis species (at least one species) Long-eared bat (at least one species) A number of echolocation calls characteristic of Leisler s Nyctalus leisleri, were also recorded. However, due to the degree of overlap between noctule and Leisler s echolocation, and the lack of Leisler s records within 5km, it is not possible to confirm that this species was present Similarly, it is not currently possible to definitively distinguish between the echolocation calls of UK bat species within the Myotis or Plecotus (long-eared) genus. Due to the species distribution, it is likely that the Plecotus species is a brown long-eared bat, and possible that there are more than one Myotis species present The results of the point count and transect surveys are summarised in Figure 2. Common pipistrelles were the most regularly recorded species on the site, with the largest number of registrations along the overgrown hedgerow along the railway embankment (point count 13). The bats were recording commuting and foraging along this linear habitat. Other areas of notable common pipistrelle activity were the native hedgerows (point count 1 and18) or within the small patches of woodland (point count 12 and 14) In comparison to average densities quoted by Robinson & Stebbings (1997) serotines were recorded at high levels in the central section of the site. This species were especially frequent in August, There was also noctule activity recorded throughout the site Picket Piece Bat Report 7

11 Static recorders The results from the remote detector surveys are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Data from remote detectors confirmed that the highest levels of common pipistrelle activity were along the railway embankment, and that serotines were the most abundant bat in the central-eastern section of the site No bats were recorded by the anabat near the railway embankment during the July survey. It is unclear whether this was due to a malfunction of the equipment or lack of bats. Due to the availability of data from August and September, this was not considered to have affected survey results to the extent that robustness of the conclusions was compromised. Table 2: Remote detectors results. Species West- by railway embankment July East- central area of site Anabat Location August September West East West East Common pipistrelle Nothing Soprano pipistrelle Recorded Serotine Possible Noctule malfunction Myotis sp Plecotus sp Unknown bat species Total bat passes No. of species Picket Piece Bat Report 8

12 4 Evaluation All recorded species are common and widespread within the UK (Bat Conservation Trust Greater horseshoe was not recorded within the site despite records of this rare species from within 5km of the site and it is concluded that greater horseshoe is absent from the site. Building inspections and Emergence/Dawn Surveys The emergence and dawn surveys confirmed Building 3 as a Myotis, and long-eared roost, whilst a possible serotine was recorded during the dawn survey The bats were recorded emerging and re-entering through a gap between the soffit and wall, at the front gable apex. This building is suspected to be used primarily as a transitional roost (during spring and autumn), although an internal inspection would be needed to ascertain whether it is also used as a maternity roost (see the recommendations section of this report). Long-eared bats, in particular, form maternity roosts with very low numbers of individuals Bats were not found to emerge from any other surveyed building and the remaining accessible buildings on site were considered to have negligible bat potential. There were 12 residential houses which were not surveyed due to access restrictions. Activity Surveys During the activity surveys, common pipistrelle was the most frequently recorded species, and the hedgerows and woodland areas within the site are used by this species to forage and commute along. The overgrown hedgerow/tree line along the railway embankment is considered to be a particularly important commuting route, in addition to providing lighting that attracts insects for foraging pipistrelles High numbers of serotine registrations were recorded in the central section of the site, and noctule activity was found throughout the site. These species were most abundant in more open areas. Due to the relatively high density of serotine calls, especially in August, there may be a roost close to the site Both serotines and pipistrelles appear unaffected by the existing light spill, in fact pipistrelles were often found feeding around street lamps. In view of this, it is considered that as long as certain important foraging and commuting areas are retained (as indicated in recommendations below), the increased light spill from other areas will not significantly affect these species Despite identifying a roost, Myotis bats did not appear to forage within the site, and this may be due to the relatively high density of street and house lights throughout. There are patches of woodland surrounding the development area (particularly at Harewood Forest, approximately 1km south east of the site) which would provide better foraging habitat for Myotis bats and which might be used preferentially. No long-eared bats were registered during the activity surveys however it is extremely likely they are under recorded due to their low intensity calls. It is clear from the remote detectors and emergence/dawn surveys that at least one species of this genus (Plecotus ap) is present and it is considered they would also forage in nearby woodland Areas considered to be important commuting or feeding areas for bats are illustrated in Figure 3. This identifies hedgerows, woodland and fields where bats were most frequently recorded. It also highlights areas which are considered to be important to bats due to their plant species composition, close vicinity or connectivity to areas of high bat activity Overall the site is considered to be of low to moderate value to bats. Areas of local importance to commuting bats (especially Pipistrelles) include; the railway embankment and associated vegetation, the central area used by a locally high number of serotines, and the whole site is considered to be used by a low number of noctules (see figure 2) Picket Piece Bat Report 9

13 5 Recommendations 5.1 OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS The residential housing scheme design is still in the conceptual stages. The development is likely to proceed in more than one phase, and the ecological survey area depicted by a red line on Figures 1-3 comprises the maximum extent of all phases of development. 5.2 FURTHER SURVEY In accordance with the Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines (Anon 2007), it is not considered necessary to conduct further bat activity surveys on this site. Neither are further building surveys required, unless residential dwellings on the site could be affected by development. Specifically, the remaining 12 residential houses which were not surveyed due to access restrictions should be assessed for their potential to support bats if they are to be affected by the proposed development Should Building 3 be affected by the development, an internal building inspection will be required to fully ascertain the likely value of the roost. If possible, this should be undertaken during the winter in order to explore whether the roost has the potential to support hibernating bats. If the building and the vegetation surrounding the access point (at the front of the building) will not be affected by the development, no further survey is considered necessary. 5.3 LICENSING Building 3 contains a bat roost. All bats and their roosts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the Habitat Regulations (1994). As well as protecting bats against disturbance, killing or injury, the legislation also protects all bat roosts against damage, destruction or obstruction (i.e. blocking up bat access points), whether bats are present or not. For this reason, if Building 3 is to be affected by the proposed development, a European Protected Species (EPS) licence would be required from Natural England for the development to proceed, including 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. This should be supported by an internal building inspection to further ascertain how bats use this roost, in addition to the survey data presented within this report. The EPS licence application process can take up to ten weeks A successful licence application will require the provision of a replacement roost that is suitable for Myotis, long-eared and serotine bats. This could be incorporated in the new buildings by adding bat access tiles into the roof to provide crevice-dwelling bat species, such as Myotis and serotine, access to the gaps between roof tiles and underfelt. In addition a roof void space with appropriate access would be required for long-eared bats. This should be a rectangular construction around 2.5m from ground height, with approximate roof void height of 2.5m. The walls should be solid brick and the roof tiles with cavities for bats to enter. Entrances must not be illuminated by external lighting. 5.4 HABITAT RETENTION Important areas for bats that need to be retained are illustrated in Figure 3. It is recommended that the mature plantation woodland, important hedgerows and mature trees are retained on site and incorporated into the scheme design. Of particular importance is the retention in their current state of woodland/hedgerows along the railway embankment. This includes ensuring light spill onto this habitat is not increased This scheme design should take into account the importance of certain features to bats. Particular hedgerows provide important connectivity, particularly for Myotis and long-eared bats that may roost in or near the site and feed in the woodland to the south. Figure 3 indicates hedgerows that need to be either retained or compensated for (through habitat creation elsewhere on the site). It is also important to retain areas of habitat where bats were frequently recorded, and commuting routes that connect these sites. These features are also illustrated in Figure An area of open habitat with woodland edge should be retained as foraging habitat for serotine and noctule bats. This should be in an area where these species have shown relatively high activity, such as the field to the south of Building 2 (illustrated in Figure 1 and 3) Picket Piece Bat Report 10

14 5.4.4 A suitable lighting plan should also be devised to ensure that bat commuting routes and foraging areas are not subject to artificial light spill, which could deter certain bat species, particularly Myotis and Plecotus. 5.5 MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT In the event that it is not possible to retain habitats as above, similar habitat should be incorporated into the site design through habitat creation. The emphasis should be to provide well connected areas of roosting and foraging habitat. All areas that are designated as important for bats must be connected to each other within the site, and linked to the railway embankment and the hedgerows on the southern boundary of the site, to improve links to the wider landscape (such as nearby woodland to the south-east and the woodland habitat along the railway line) Picket Piece Bat Report 11

15 6 Conclusion The site contains one confirmed roost located at Building 3. This is considered to be a transitional roost, but may be used as a long-eared bat maternity roost. The current proposals do no involve impacts to this building. An EPS licence application and replacement roost will be required if this roost is to be affected by works. This should be supported by an internal inspection of the roost, to confirm the status of the roost Further survey of residential buildings not assessed within this document will be required if they are to be affected by the proposed development Recommendations are made to retain and enhance existing open grassland, woodland, hedgerow and tree lines in order to maintain populations of bat species found during the bat survey Picket Piece Bat Report 12

16 References & Bibliography Anon (1995) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. Anon (2007) Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London, UK. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough, UK. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. [Eds.] (2004). The Bat Workers Manual (3rd edition). Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK. Robinson, M. F., and R. Stebbings. (1997). Home range and habitat use by the serotine bat, Eptesicus serotinus, in England. J. Zool. Vol. 243, no.1 pp (Accessed 30/09/2009) (Accessed 30/09/2009) (Accessed 30/09/2009) WSP Environmental (July 2009) Picket Piece Phase 1 habitat survey Web addresses for access to full UK legislation and policy text: Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994: Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007: Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2009: Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006: Planning Policy Statement 9: Picket Piece Bat Report 13

17 Figure 1 Map showing transects, sample points and anabat passes Picket Piece Bat Report 14

18 Figure 2 Summary of Bat Activity Picket Piece Bat Report 15

19 Figure 3 Important foraging and commuting areas Picket Piece Bat Report 16