Appendix 7.14 Addendum Bat Survey Report... · 2016. 11. 28. · Capabilities on project: Environment ... / Brandt’s (Myotis brandti), Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri) and Leisler’s

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

Appendix 7.14 Addendum Bat Survey Report

Environment

A1 South East Northumberland Strategic Link Road: Morpeth Northern Bypass

July 2011

A1 South East Northumberland Strategic Link Road: Morpeth Northern Bypass – Updated Bat Survey Report

Prepared by: ......................... Checked by: Harriet Vaight BSc (Hons), MIEEM Lyndsey Yates BSc (Hons), MSc, MIEEM Senior Environmental Scientist Senior Environmental Scientist

Approved by: Kevin Webb BSc (Hons), MSc, MIEEM Regional Director Bentley Works- Bat Habitat Assessment

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by

Date

0 Draft for internal review LAY KW 08/08/2011 1 Issue to client

5th Floor, 2 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AR Telephone: 0113 391 6800 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No60095823 Reference Ecology RE014 Date Created 27/07/2011 This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. f:\projects\53101ilee morpeth northen bypass\ecology\bat surveys 2011\report\appendix 7 14 updated bat report 2011 rev2.doc

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

2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

3 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 24

5 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 26

6 Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A- Transect Survey Raw Survey Forms ............................................................................................................... 30

Appendix B- Building Survey Raw Survey Forms ................................................................................................................ 31

Appendix C- Tree Survey Raw Survey Forms ...................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 1 – Bat Survey 2011 (Map 1 of 2 & Map 2 of 2) .......................................................................................................... 28

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

AECOM Updated Bat Survey Report 1

Capabilities on project:

Environment

1.1 Background & Scope of Work

1.1.1 AECOM were commissioned by Northumberland County Council (NCC) to undertake ecological surveys at the location

of the proposed A1 - South East Northumberland Strategic Link Road: Morpeth Northern Bypass.

1.1.2 The proposed single carriageway bypass is approximately 3.8km in length and will be located to the north of Morpeth

town centre, linking the A1, northwest of Morpeth, with the A197 at Whorral Bank. The bypass will provide a more direct

link to the former coalfield areas of south east Northumberland, thereby facilitating regeneration of the area, easing

congestion in Morpeth and promoting further development The route is shown on Figure 1, starting at approximate

National Grid Reference (NGR) NZ 180868 and finishing at approximate NGR NZ 211873.

1.1.3 The proposed bypass runs through an area that predominantly comprises improved grassland (grazed) and arable land

bounded by primarily species-poor intact hedgerows and fences, as well as several minor tributaries of the River

Wansbeck. At the eastern end of the scheme the route skirts the northern edge of Howburn Wood as it crosses a former

opencast coal site on Pegswood Moor. Lighting is proposed at the St. Leonard’s Roundabouts, along the link road to

Northgate Roundabout, at Northgate Roundabout, St. George’s Roundabout and an extension of the existing road

lighting at Whorral Bank Roundabout.

1.1.4 As part of an Environmental Assessment of the proposed bypass, a suite of ecological surveys have been carried out at

the site by AECOM since March 2007. During these surveys, the area of the proposed route of the bypass was

identified to provide habitat suitable for bats.

1.1.5 Bat surveys were undertaken at the site to determine the presence/absence of bat roosts and the extent of bat activity

within 250m of the proposed bypass. The bat survey work was split into two sections of the proposed bypass, as

summarised below:

- St. George’s Link Section; between the A192 at Pottery Bank (at NGR NZ 184872) to the B1337 at Whorral Bank

(NGR NZ 211873) by AECOM. Bat surveys undertaken include:

- Habitat assessment July 2008.

- Activity surveys late-July/early-August 2008, September 2008.

- Roost surveys July and September 2008.

(Morpeth Northern Bypass Bat Survey Report, October 2008)

- St. Leonard’s Link Section; between the A1 (at NGR NZ 180868) and the A192 at Pottery Bank (NGR NZ 184872).

Bat surveys undertaken include:

- Habitat assessment June 2009.

- Transect surveys May and June 2009.

- Roost surveys late-June/early-July 2009.

(St. Leonard’s Link Ecology Surveys Report, January 2010)

1.1.6 A background to bats, and legislation and policy guidance in relation to bats can be found within the original survey

reports. The reports also include local bat data obtained from an Ecological Data Search.

1.1.7 The previous surveys identified seven bat species at the site: common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), noctule (Nyctalus noctula), Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentoni), whiskered (Myotis

mystacinus) / Brandt’s (Myotis brandti), Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri) and Leisler’s (Nyctalus leisleri).

1.2 Purpose of this Report

1.2.1 The purpose of this report is to update the bat surveys for the scheme prior to issue of the Environmental Statement.

The report documents the methodology followed during the updated bat surveys and reports the findings. This

information will be used to inform and update the impacts and mitigation sections of the Environmental Statement. A

comparison is also made with the findings of the previous bat surveys undertaken in 2008 and 2009.

1 Introduction

2 Methodology



Environment

2.1 Transect Surveys

2.1.1 Manual transect surveys help gain an understanding of how bats use an area and are used to determine the intensity of

bat activity (spatially and temporally) and the type of activity, such as foraging (feeding buzzes), commuting (high direct

pass rates) or returning or emerging from roosts.

2.1.2 The objectives of the transect surveys were:

o To determine the potential effect the proposed bypass would have on bat species present.

o To determine the area and value of habitat for bat species.

o To identify links to potential high value habitats outside of the development area.

o To determine if the route of the proposed bypass is a corridor, or contains corridors, of importance for

commuting bats.

2.1.3 A transect following the line of the proposed bypass route was undertaken, with five minute stopping points at features

and habitat that were likely to be used by bats, e.g. potential flightline crossing points of the proposed bypass such as

hedgerows, tree lines and watercourses. The route of the bypass and the location of stopping points are shown on

Figure 1.

2.1.4 The transect survey was undertaken over three dusk surveys, split as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Transect survey sections

Survey date

Transect section Sunset

time

Survey start

time

Survey finish

time 18/07/2011 Start at eastern end of the route, on east of

B1377 Whorral Bank, and finish at How Burn. 21:33 21:20 23:40

19/07/2011 Start at How Burn, and finish at Cotting Burn. 21:33 21:20 23:39

21/07/2011 Start at Cotting Burn, and finish at St. Leonard’s Lane.

21:29 21:20 23:30

2.1.5 Surveys were undertaken in accordance with guidance within the “Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines” (Bat

Conservation Trust, 2007). Surveys were therefore undertaken in calm, dry weather conditions when temperatures were

>100C ensuring optimum foraging activity.

2.1.6 Transects were started approximately 10 minutes prior to sunset and continued for approximately 2 hours after sunset.

This ensured that both late and early emerging bat species may be recorded. Each transect was walked by two

surveyors, walking at a slow, constant pace.

2.2 Building Roost Surveys

2.2.1 Rose Cottage is the only building in the line of the proposed bypass route, and is proposed to be demolished to facilitate

construction. The location of Rose Cottage is shown on Figure 1 (Map 2 of 2). This is a red-brick bungalow with a slate

roof and a small flat-roof extension to the north that has a bituminous roof material. There are wooden fascias and

concrete barge boards around the red-brick section.

2.2.2 During the previous survey undertaken at the building on the 24th September 2008, a roost supporting a single soprano

pipistrelle bat was identified in the south-west corner of the building between the fascia and roof.

2.2.3 Two dusk surveys were undertaken on this building as part of these update surveys, with details provided in Table 2.

2 Methodology



Environment

Table 2 Building surveys

Survey date Sunset time Survey start time Survey finish time

20/07/2011 21:31 21:10 22:40

25/07/2011 21:22 21:05 22:48

2.2.4 The surveys aimed to determine:

o Whether bats are still using the building as a roost.

o What species of bat are present.

o The population size of bats roosting.

o Whether the surrounding area is used as commuting/foraging habitat.

2.2.5 Surveys were undertaken in accordance with guidance within the “Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines” (Bat

Conservation Trust, 2007). Surveys were therefore undertaken in calm, dry weather conditions when temperatures were

>100C ensuring optimum foraging activity.

2.2.6 Two surveyors conducted each survey and were located at either end of the building to optimise the area covered during

the surveys.

2.3 Tree Roost Surveys

2.3.1 Surveys of trees with high bat potential within the line of the proposed bypass route were surveyed as part of the update

surveys. The locations of the trees are shown on Figure 1. These surveys aimed to determine:

o Whether bats are using particular trees as roosts.

o What species of bat are present in the roost.

o The population size of bats roosting in the tree.

o Whether the surrounding area is used as commuting/foraging habitat.

2.3.2 The high bat potential trees were identified during the Bat Habitat Assessments undertaken during the previous surveys.

Nine high potential trees within the St. George’s Link section and seven high potential trees within the St. Leonard’s Link

section fall directly under the footprint of the proposed bypass route and may be felled as a result. Descriptions of the

trees can be found in the previous AECOM reports; Morpeth Northern Bypass Bat Survey Report, October 2008 and St.

Leonard’s Link Ecology Surveys, January 2010.

2.3.3 During the previous bat surveys, only one tree was found to support a bat roost. This was Tree 17, where two soprano

pipistrelle were recorded roosting during a dawn survey on the 25th September 2008.

2.3.4 The tree surveys were carried out during dusk and dawn. Dusk surveys commenced approximately half an hour before

sunset until approximately an hour and a half after sunset. Different bat species emerge at different times and the timing

of the dusk surveys allows for any species present to be recorded. Dawn surveys commenced approximately between

1.5 to 2 hours before sunrise and finished at sunrise or shortly afterwards.

2.3.5 Table 3 outlines the date, location and type of tree roost survey undertaken.



Environment

Table 3 Tree roost surveys

Date of

survey

Location and type of survey Sunset/sunrise

Time

Survey start

time

Survey finish time

19/07/11 Tree 1 + 2, St. George’s Link – Dawn 04:55 03:30 05:10

21/07/11 Tree 30 +35, St. George’s Link – Dawn 04:50 03:30 05:10

22/07/11 Trees 13,14 + 15, St. George’s Link–

Dawn

04:55 03:30 05:10

26/07/11 Tree 17 + 27, St. George’s Link – Dawn 05:08 03:40 05:10

26/07/11 Tree 43 and 69, St. Leonard’s Link –Dusk 21:21 21:00 22:38

27/07/11 Trees 26 to 28, and 35/36, St. Leonard’s

Link – Dawn

05:06 03:45 05:10

Weather Conditions

2.3.6 Table 4 summarises the weather conditions during each survey. Conditions during all surveys were appropriate for

conducting dusk and dawn surveys. A dawn survey on the 20th July 2011 was proposed, however this was cancelled

due to poor weather conditions. .

Table 4 Weather conditions during surveys

Date of

Survey

Temp at

survey

start

(0C)

Temp at

survey

finish (0C)

Wind

speed

Rainfall Cloud

cover

Weather during the day

18/07/11 –

Dusk

16.5 16 F0 None 80% Showers and warm during the day.

19/07/11 –

Dawn

18 16 F0 None 85% Dry and calm during the day.

19/07/11 –

Dusk

16 16 F0 Slight

drizzle

90% Combination of heavy rain showers

and calm during the day.

20/07/11 –

Dusk

14 12 F0 None 100% Heavy continuous rain during day

which cleared before the start of the

survey.

21/07/11 –

Dawn


21/07/11 –

Dusk

15.9 14 F1 None 80% Dry, warm and calm during the day.

22/07/11 –

Dawn


25/07/11 –

Dusk

16 15 F0 None 80% Warm, overcast and dry during the

day.

26/07/11 -

Dawn

17 16 F0 Light rain 100% Light rain overnight.

26/07/11 -

Dusk

16 15 F0 None 100% Light drizzle and calm during the

day.

27/07/11 –

Dawn

17 15 F0 None 70% Warm, dry and calm during the day.



Environment

Personnel

2.3.7 Table 5 provides details of the personnel involved in the surveys.

Table 5 Personnel involved in the surveys

Personnel Date of survey Experience

Kerry Rhodes

18/07/11 to 27/07/11 Bat surveyor, Natural England survey licence number 20104345 held since 2007, bat surveying for 8 years.

Francesca Tarry 18/07/11 to 22/07/11 Graduate ecologist, with 3 years experience of bat surveys

Stephen Dixon 25/07/11 to 27/07/11 Senior ecologist, with 5 years experience of bat surveys

Equipment Used

2.3.8 For all surveys, surveyors were equipped with Batbox Duet frequency division bat detectors which were used to identify

and monitor bat activity. These detect bat echolocation sound waves and present them in a format audible to the human

ear. Powerful torches assisted in locating bat activity.

2.3.9 Some species may be easily identifiable by audible characteristics during a survey, but for confirmation, recordings were

made throughout the surveys. Equipment such as MP3 recorders were used to record bat echolocation onto an

electronic format. These recordings are then analysed using BatSound (Version 3.31) to identify bat calls to species

level.

2.3.10 All bat activity observed was recorded on a map and on survey forms, noting information such as time, species, number

and behaviour.

3 Results



Environment

3.1 Transect Survey Results

3.1.1 Bat activity was recorded along the length of the transect of the proposed bypass route; the results of the transect survey

are provided in Table 6. The transect survey raw survey forms can be found in Appendix A. The stopping point (SP)

locations are shown on Figure 1.

Table 6 Summary of transect survey results

Transect section

Number of stopping points (SP)

Bat activity

Eastern end of the proposed bypass to How Burn.

6 No bats were recorded at stopping points at Whorral Bank road or at the northern points of Howburn Wood (SP1-3). Noctule, Myotis sp. and common pipistrelle (all single bats) were recorded commuting along the edge of Howburn Wood and using the fenceline and small embankment leading northwards from Howburn Wood towards the golf course (SP4-5). A common pipistrelle was recorded commuting and foraging along the hedgerow running between Howburn Wood and East Shield Hill (SP6).

How Burn to Cotting Burn.

12 No bats were recorded at How Burn, or the fence and hedgerow west of How Burn (SP7-9). Small groups of common pipistrelle (2 to 5 bats) were recorded flying northwards along the fenceline east of the proposed St Georges roundabout (SP10). A common pipistrelle was recorded flying across the field at the location of the proposed St Georges roundabout (SP11). A noctule and common pipistrelle were recorded along the hedgerow east of the road at Kater Dene (SP12). Common pipistrelles were recorded along the road at Rose Cottage (SP13-15). No bats were recorded on the two hedgerow boundaries west of Rose Cottage or at Cotting Burn (SP16-18).

Cotting Burn to St. Leonard’s Lane.

6 No bats were recorded on the boundaries in vicinity to East Lane End Farm (SP19-21). Three individual commuting / foraging common pipistrelle were recorded along the hedgerow north of West Lane End (SP22). Five foraging noctule were also recorded from this stopping point, flying along the A1 embankment. Commuting and foraging common pipistrelle and Leisler’s (individuals and in small groups up to 4) were noted along the hedge adjacent to St. Leonard’s Lane (SP24).

3.1.2 Peak foraging and commuting activity was recorded in the following areas and it is therefore likely that the bats would

cross the proposed bypass route:

o SP4-5: Fenceline and small embankment leading northwards from Howburn Wood towards the golf course,

and along Howburn Wood (4 common pipistrelles, 3 noctule and 1 Myotis).

3 Results



Environment

o SP10: Along the fenceline east of the proposed St. George’s roundabout (13 common pipistrelles).

o SP12: Hedgerow east of the road at Kater Dene (2 common pipistrelles and 1 noctule).

o SP22: Hedgerow north of West Lane End Farm (3 common pipistrelles).

o Eastern A1 embankment (5 noctules).

o SP24: St. Leonard’s Lane (approximately 5 common pipistrelles and 3 Leisler’s).

3.1.3 The following bat species were recorded during the transect surveys:

o Common pipistrelle.

o Noctule.

o Natterer’s bat.

o Leisler’s bat.

3.2 Building Survey Results

3.2.1 No droppings or staining were visible on the exterior walls of the building. However, there had been heavy rain prior to

the survey which may have washed them away.

3.2.2 During the first dusk survey on the 20th July 2011, commuting and foraging single common pipistrelle and Myotis bats

were recorded, with activity particularly high along the adjacent road. However, no bats were observed emerging from

the building.

3.2.3 During the second dusk survey on the 25th July 2011, two common pipistrelle were observed emerging from the south

west corner of the building (same location as during the September 2008 survey). Numerous commuting and foraging

common pipistrelle and Myotis bats (individuals and in pairs) were also recorded, mostly along the adjacent road.

3.2.4 The building survey raw survey forms can be found in Appendix B.



Environment

3.3 Tree Survey Results

3.3.1 Bat activity was recorded in the vicinity of all the trees that were surveyed with high bat roost potential. A roost was

identified in Tree 36; it was not possible to identify this individual to species level from its social call but it is likely to be

either a Leisler’s bat or a noctule as these species are known to roost predominantly in trees. No other trees were

recorded as being used by bats for roosting at the time of survey, including Tree 17 which was identified as having a

soprano pipistrelle bat roost during the September 2008 surveys. Table 7 summarises the activity recorded at the trees

surveyed. The tree survey raw survey forms can be found in Appendix C.

Table 7 Summary of tree survey results

Tree

No.

Date of

survey

Activity recorded Roosts recorded

St. George’s Link

1, 2 19/07/11 –

Dawn

Individual common pipistrelle and noctules foraging and

commuting in area.

No bats recorded roosting in trees.

13, 14 20/07/11 -

Dawn

Individual common pipistrelle commuting in area. No bats recorded roosting in trees.

15 20/07/11 -

Dawn

Individual common pipistrelle commuting in area. No bats recorded roosting in tree

17 21/07/11 -

Dawn

Common pipistrelle commuting in area, as individuals

and in pairs.

No bats recorded roosting in tree.

27 21/07/11 -

Dawn

Noctule and Myotis sp. foraging and commuting in area,

as individuals and in pairs.


30 22/07/11 –

Dawn

Common pipistrelle commuting in area. No bats recorded roosting in tree.

35 22/07/11 –

Dawn

Common and soprano pipistrelle foraging and

commuting in area, in small groups of up to four.


St. Leonard’s Link

26, 27,

28

26/07/11 -

Dusk

Individual common pipistrelle and probably Myotis sp.

foraging and commuting in area.

No bats recorded roosting in trees.

35, 36 26/07/11 -

Dusk

Common and soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler’s and

Natterer’s foraging and commuting in area, as individuals

and in small groups of up to five bats.

Bat recorded roosting in Tree 36.

Social calls heard, potentially from

a branch with a horizontal split. Not

able to identify due to social call,

but likely to be Leisler’s bat or a

noctule.

43 27/07/11 -

Dawn

Myotis sp. foraging and commuting in area, as

individuals and in small groups of up to three bats.


69 27/07/11 -

Dawn

Common and soprano pipistrelle and Natterer’s foraging

in area, in small groups of up to three bats.




Environment

3.3.2 During the survey at Trees 35 and 36, an important naturally occurring hop-over across the A1 was noted, linking

habitats east and west of the A1. The line of mature trees east of the A1 are tall at this location, and the A1 is in cutting

forming a naturally occurring flightline and crossing point for a number of species of bat.

4 Summary



Environment

4.1 Summary

4.1.1 The survey area is considered to provide high quality habitat for foraging, commuting and roosting bats. Commuting

habitat is provided along mature hedgerows and tree lines which is the predominant form of field boundary. Local access

roads bounded by hedgerows and mature trees provide further high value commuting habitat. A wide variety of potential

foraging habitat exists within the survey area providing potential food sources for a variety of bat species including

mature broadleaved woodland edge, watercourses, ponds, pastoral farmland and mature hedgerows and tree lines.

Potential roosting habitat exists within mature broadleaved trees and various rural properties which occur within and

immediately adjacent to the survey area. The high degree of connectivity provided by hedgerows, watercourses and tree

lines further increases the value of the site for bats.

4.1.2 Five species of bat were confirmed to be active within the survey area including common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle,

Natterer’s bats, Leisler’s and noctule. It is likely that brown long eared are also present within the survey area due to the

presence of suitable habitat but were not recorded during the surveys as brown long-eared bat calls are very quiet and

rarely picked up by bat detectors. The significance of these species is shown in Table 7. Only Leisler’s is classed as

rare (although is widespread) on a national scale and is therefore of greatest significance from this set of results.

Table 7 Significance of species recorded

Species National Scale Regional Scale1 Local Scale

2

Common pipistrelle Common and widespread Common and widespread Common and widespread

Soprano pipistrelle Common and widespread Common and widespread Common and widespread

Natterer’s bat Frequent and widespread Frequent and widespread No records known

Leisler’s bat Rare and widespread Rare and distribution unknown No records known

Noctule Frequent and widespread Frequent and widespread No records gathered

4.1.3 Bat activity was recorded directly within the footprint of the proposed bypass route and also along hedgerows and

watercourses which would be severed.

4.1.4 In terms of potential roost sites, two locations were confirmed as roost sites during these update surveys; Rose Cottage

and Tree 36. Two common pipistrelles were confirmed to be roosting within Rose Cottage. A bat was recorded as

emitting social calls from Tree 36 during the dawn survey conducted on the 27th July 2011. It was not possible to

identify this individual to species level from its social call but it is likely to be either a Leisler’s bat or a noctule as these

species are known to roost predominantly in trees. Further survey work would be required to inform Natural England

European Protected Species (EPS) development licences for these roosts.

1 Data obtained from Northumberland Bat Group webpage.

2 Data obtained from the 2km Ecological Data Search for the Survey Area (AECOM, Morpeth Northern Bypass Bat Survey

Report, October 2008)

4 Summary



Environment

4.1.5 The results of the transect survey indicate that bat activity is present along the whole length of the proposed bypass route

and that bats use existing hedgerows and watercourses as flightlines for commuting and foraging. Bat activity was

recorded directly within the footprint of the proposed bypass route and also along hedgerows and watercourses which

would be severed by the proposed bypass route (Figure 1). These include the following;

o The flightline shown at TN1 – a large number (approximately 20 but this number is likely to be underestimated

due to the difficulties in seeing bats flying in low light conditions) of bats of different species (including noctule,

common pipistrelle and Leisler’s) were seen to be using this flightline to cross the A1. The mature (and

therefore tall) trees which form the field boundary to the west and east of the A1 in addition to the fact that the

A1 is constructed in a cutting at this point combines to form a natural ‘hop-over’ for bats commuting across the

A1. The height of the tree canopy encourages flight at height across the A1 which may significantly reduce the

chance of mortality through collision with vehicles using the A1. This flightline is a significant feature for bats.

o The flightline shown at TN2. A number of bats were noted using this flightline which links to dense, continuous

hedgerows at its northern and southern extent.

o The flightline shown at TN3. A number of bats of different species were noted using the local access road to

link to the mature tree line which runs east-west to the east of Rose Cottage. It is likely that this flightline is

linked to that shown at TN2.

o The woodland edge of Howburn Wood at TN4 was shown as being an important flightline used by a number of

different species of bats.

o The dense hedgerow and bank which lies off the south bound carriageway of the A1 was shown as being

important for foraging noctules. This is likely to be a favoured foraging ground due to the land use as pastoral

farmland which will encourage insects. This, in addition to the fact that the A1 is built on an embankment at this

point and therefore will provide shelter from the prevailing westerly wind will increase the value of this site as a

foraging ground due to its sheltered position where insects may aggregate.

o The watercourses of How Burn and Cotting Burn will provide suitable foraging habitat and commuting habitat

linking those which occur to the south and north of these watercourses.

o St. Leonard’s Lane, due to the dense hedgerows and mature broadleaved trees which form the field

boundaries of adjoining land, provides valuable sheltered foraging and commuting habitat.

4.2 Comparison with Previous Surveys

4.2.1 The results of the previous surveys can be found within the following AECOM reports; Morpeth Northern Bypass Bat

Survey Report, October 2008 and St. Leonard’s Link Ecology Surveys, January 2010

4.2.2 The previous surveys identified seven species of bat within the Survey Area; all the species found by this survey, as well

as Daubenton’s and whiskered/Brandt’s.

4.2.3 A single soprano pipistrelle was found roosting at Rose Cottage by the previous survey, in the south-west corner of the

building between the fascia and roof. This year’s survey found two common pipistrelle bats using the same roost.

4.2.4 This survey identified a new roost at Tree 36, which was not found during the previous surveys.

4.2.5 Tree 17 was recorded as a soprano pipistrelle roost during the previous 2008 surveys, though no evidence of a roost

was found within the tree during this survey. This tree should still be considered as a roost as part of the Environmental

Statement assessment.

4.2.6 Five new important foraging and commuting areas were identified by this survey, including a hop-over the A1. These

areas were not identified by the previous surveys. The important foraging and commuting areas identified by the

previous surveys were not found highlighted during this survey. However, this could be due to the transect routes being

different, therefore highlighting separate areas.



Environment

4.3 The Nature Conservation of the Bat Population

4.3.1 Refer to the previous AECOM survey reports for the assessment methodology to determine nature conservation value

(Morpeth Northern Bypass Bat Survey Report October 2008 and St Leonards Link Ecology Surveys Report January

2010). The nature conservation value of the local bat population of the proposed bypass route was considered to be

medium by the previous surveys, and this is still considered to be the case following these updated surveys. All species

identified during the survey work are listed on the Northumberland Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP), and soprano

pipistrelle and noctule bats are also featured on the UK BAP, and are therefore of importance nationally. However, the

relatively small number of bats recorded at the site would prevent it from being considered as high nature conservation

value.

4.4 Further Survey Work

4.4.1 These surveys provide updated data on the local bat population for inclusion within the Environmental Statement (ES)

for the scheme. The impact assessment and recommended mitigation can be found within the ES.

4.4.2 The current programme for the project is for construction to commence January 2014, therefore pre-construction surveys

for bats will be necessary to update data prior to works. Additional surveys will also be required at Rose Cottage, Tree

17 and Tree 36 to provide further data to inform Natural England European Protected Species (EPS) licence

applications. Replacement roosting habitat, for example in the form of bat boxes, will need to be provided as part of the

licence.

5 Bibliography



Environment

AECOM (October 2008) Morpeth Northern Bypass Bat Survey Report. AECOM (January 2010) St. Leonard’s Link Ecology Surveys Report.

Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys; Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Cowan, A (2003) Trees and bats. Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 1 (Second Edition). Arboricultural Association, Hants. http://www.trees.org.uk English Nature (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature. EU Habitats Directive (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC; on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Highways Agency (2008) Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Bats; Interim Advice Note 116/08. HMSO (1994) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Chapter 69 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810069_en_1 The Stationary Office. HMSO (1994). The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19942716_en_1.htm.The Stationary Office. HMSO (1995). Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report. Tranch 2: Action Plans. http://www.ukbap.org.uk.The Stationary Office. Mitchell-Jones, A.J, & McLeish, A.P. (Edited by) (2004) Bat Workers Manual, 3

rd Edition. JNCC

Northumberland Bat Group (undated) Bats in Northumberland http://northumberlandbats.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=18

5 References

6 Figures



Environment

Figure 1 – Bat Survey 2011 (Map 1 of 2 & Map 2 of 2)

6 Figures

Appendices



Environment

Appendix A- Transect Survey Raw Survey Forms



Environment

Appendix B- Building Survey Raw Survey Forms



Environment

Appendix C- Tree Survey Raw Survey Forms

Documents

Appendix 7.14 Addendum Bat Survey Report... · 2016. 11. 28. · Capabilities on project: Environment ... / Brandt’s (Myotis brandti), Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri) and Leisler’s