Highways Agency Best practice in enhancement of highway design for bats Literature review report March 2006

Halcrow Group Limited

Halcrow Group Limited Ash House Falcon Road Exeter EX2 7LB Tel +44 (0)1392 444252 Fax +44 (0)1392 444301 www.halcrow.com

Highways Agency Best practice in enhancement of highway design for bats Literature review report

Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows: Issue Revision Description Date Signed

1 A Consultation draft for workshop

26/10/05 Richard Green

1 B Final report 27/03/06 Richard Green

Author – Alison Rasey (Bat Conservation Trust)

Edited by Richard Green

Contents

1 Summary 1

2 Introduction 2 2.1 Objectives 2 2.2 Approach 2 2.3 Background 3 2.4 Legislation 3

3 Approach 5 3.1 Method 5

4 Results 6 4.1 Questionnaires 6 4.2 Telephone interviews undertaken 6 4.3 Case studies 6 4.4 Active research 6 4.5 Other comments 7

5 Effects of highways on bats 8 5.1 Introduction 8 5.2 Severance of bat commuting routes (flyways/flight paths) 8 5.3 Traffic casualties 15 5.4 Effects of Lighting 17 5.5 Foraging habitats 18 5.6 Damage/disturbance to roosts 21 5.7 Summary 24

6 Stages of assessment 25 6.1 Desk study assessment 25 6.2 Initial walkover survey 27 6.3 Field survey 27 6.4 Mitigation 30

7 Case studies 32 7.1 A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass, Cumbria 32 7.2 Blackwater Valley Road, Surrey 34 7.3 Sirhowy Enterprise Way, Abergavenny 36

7.4 A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllyfni 36 7.5 A477 Sageston to Redberth Improvement 38 7.6 A39 Glyn Valley 38 7.7 Future case studies 39

8 Recommendations 44 8.1 Further research 44 8.2 Project considerations 44 8.3 Survey considerations 45 8.4 Mitigation considerations 45 8.5 Maintenance considerations 46

9 References 47

10 Acknowledgements 51

11 Appendices 52

1

1 Summary

This review has been undertaken for the Highways Agency as part of the commission ‘Best practice in enhancement of highway design for bats’. The aims of the review are to:

• review the implications of highway projects on bats; • make recommendations for appropriate bat survey methods; • determine how bats might use the highway landscape for roosting, foraging and commuting; • review examples of bat mitigation with regard to roads; • make recommendations for mitigation and enhancement of the highway landscape for bats; and • make recommendations for further work to develop best practice in this area.

The review has considered published and unpublished information from the UK and Europe. Unpublished information has largely been gathered, using questionnaires and telephone interviews, from:

• bat groups; • bat consultants from the UK and Europe; • Highways Agency Environmental Advisors; • other highway professionals, such as those from local highway authorities and the devolved

administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and • statutory nature conservation organisations.

Selected UK highway projects where mitigation has been implemented for bats have been reviewed to assess the effectiveness of current mitigation techniques. The review of mitigation is limited because of a lack of sites where mitigation has been implemented, coupled with the fact that such mitigation has been implemented relatively recently (generally within the last five years). It is also apparent that some mitigation has not been monitored sufficiently, if at all.

A number of proposed projects that will require or recommend bat mitigation have been identified and it is hoped that they will be properly monitored and their success assessed in order to inform future reviews.

Draft outputs from the Bat Conservation Trust and Highways Agency Survey Workshop (December 2004) on bat surveying for highways have been summarised in this review.

Knowledge and best practice for survey and mitigation are continually evolving, and one of the main recommendations is that further reviews are undertaken, initially on a five-yearly basis.

2

2 Introduction

2.1 Objectives The Highways Agency’s (HA) strategic aim is to provide safe roads, reliable journeys and informed travellers. As the trunk road and motorway network operator in England, the HA’s specific environmental key objective is to respect the environment by mitigating the potentially adverse impact of strategic roads, and taking opportunities to enhance the environment taking into account value for money.

The HA is the central UK government organisation responsible for the research, development and publication of the advice in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), in consultation with and on behalf of the four UK territorial administrations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (the Overseeing Organisations).

The HA has commissioned the research project ‘Best practice in enhancement of highway design for bats’ to update and revise DMRB Volume 10 to take account of changes in legislation, survey methodology, identification of potential effects and approaches to mitigation.

The purpose of this review is to identify sources and review relevant information from the UK and Europe, and produce a summary of the findings, in particular to:

• identify measures to improve current best practice for bats in highways works; • highlight successful and unsuccessful mitigation practices; and • identify knowledge gaps and areas where further research is needed to enable effective

mitigation.

2.2 Approach Relevant information was reviewed and collated from a number of sources. These can be broken down as follows:

• Information on general highway and bat issues, from published information, bat consultants and bat groups.

• Information from motorway and trunk road projects undertaken, from government highway authorities.

• Information from other highway projects undertaken, from unitary authorities, national park authorities and county highway authorities.

3

2.3 Background There are currently considered to be 17 bat species resident in Britain, 16 of which have been confirmed as breeding.

Bat ecology is not covered in any detail here but is discussed within the review. Further information on UK bat ecology can be found within DMRB Volume 10, Section 4. Another useful reference is Altringham 2003.

2.4 Legislation The following pieces of legislation apply to bats in the UK:

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) • Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (England and Wales) • Nature Conservation Act 2004 (Scotland) • European Union Directive (92/43/EEC) Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora (often referred to as the Habitats Directive), enacted in the UK by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994

• The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) 1982

• The Convention on the Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) 1979

Appropriate legal advice should be sought in the interpretation of the law.

All bat species and their roosts are protected in the UK under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. All bat species and their roosts are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), through inclusion in Schedule 5, and under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Taken together, these acts and regulations make it illegal to:

• intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture bats; • deliberately or recklessly disturb bats; • damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts; • possess or transport a bat or any part of a bat, unless acquired legally; and • sell, barter or exchange bats, or parts of bats.

Developments that compromise the protection afforded to bats under the provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 will almost invariably require a licence to do so lawfully. Three tests must be satisfied before a licence can be issued to permit otherwise prohibited acts:

4

1. Regulation 44(2)(e) states that licences may be granted to “preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.”

2. Regulation 44(3)(a) states that a licence may not be granted unless it is considered “that there is no satisfactory alternative”.

3. Regulation 44(3)(b) states that a licence cannot be issued unless the action proposed “will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range”.

There are three defences in law that allow what would otherwise be prohibited acts:

1. Injured or disabled animals may be taken and possessed in order to look after them, with the sole purpose of releasing them once they are no longer disabled; similarly, badly injured animals may be legally killed.

2. Within dwelling houses, bats may be disturbed and bat roosts may be damaged, destroyed or obstructed in consultation with the Statutory Nature Conservation Advisor (SNCO). However, bats may not be killed, injured or taken.

3. Killing, injuring, taking or disturbing bats or damaging, destroying or obstructing roosts are not offences if these were the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided.

5

3 Approach

3.1 Method Review information was obtained from a variety of sources as follows:

• Bat Conservation Trust (BCT)/HA Bat Survey Workshop, December 2004 (30 delegates attended a 3-day workshop to identify and agree bat survey standards).

• Published literature (see References in Chapter 9). • Unpublished literature (information from bat groups, consultants, HA, other government

highway authorities, NGOs, universities) (see References). • Consultation with bat practitioners (during June/July 2005, which involved questionnaires sent to

90 bat groups and 20 bat consultants, telephone interviews with 10 European bat consultants, and SNCO bat practitioners).

• Consultation with highway professionals (including a questionnaire to 14 HA regions and the Overseeing Organisations, and telephone interviews).

Two different questionnaires were sent, one to bat groups and consultants (Appendix A), and the other to highway professionals (Appendix B). Their aim was to ascertain their level of involvement in highway/bat projects, identify where mitigation has been implemented for bats, assess its success and allow consideration of follow-up monitoring. Due to time constraints and the wish for as many responses as possible, the questionnaires did not require detailed response. No follow-up reminder letter was sent for non-returns, but follow-up telephone interviews were undertaken for all positive returns.

Following on from the results of the questionnaires, reports on implemented bat mitigation and any post-project monitoring were requested from the HA and other highway authorities for review. Telephone contact was also made, where possible, with the consultants involved in the schemes.

6

4 Results

4.1 Questionnaires • Of 90 questionnaires sent to bat groups, 35 were returned.

• Of 20 sent to consultants, 15 were returned. Five of those returned were received from European consultants.

• Of 17 sent to the HA regions and the Overseeing Organisations, 7 were returned.

• In total, 57 completed questionnaires were received.

4.2 Telephone interviews undertaken • 10 with consultants not in receipt of questionnaire.

• Two with bat groups prior to questionnaire.

• Six with non-HA highways professionals and SNCO bat practitioners.

• 23 with consultants/bat groups who responded to questionnaire.

A number of questionnaire returns (see Appendix C) indicated that mitigation had been implemented. However, follow-up telephone calls to respondents showed that in a number of cases mitigation had, in fact, not been undertaken, resulting in fewer case studies than originally hoped.

4.3 Case studies Case studies where bat mitigation has been implemented are detailed in Chapter 7 of this report.

4.4 Active research As part of this commission it is planned to undertake monitoring surveys on implemented mitigation where it is felt that further survey is required to assess the success or failure of mitigation. Mitigation to be focused on includes:

(a) crossover points (bridges, culverts or underpasses) (b) artificial roosts, other than standard bat boxes*

* It is considered that research information exists on the success of bat boxes in the UK.

7

From the information supplied, several projects were identified that may be worth investigating further (refer to Chapter 7). It was planned to undertake the survey in the summer of 2005, however detailed information on the background, implemented mitigation and monitoring has been difficult to obtain and we are still waiting to obtain all the necessary information before making recommendations for active research surveys. It is recommended that this aspect of the commission be postponed until 2006 when more robust recommendations can be made on survey requirements.

4.5 Other comments A number of consultees made additional comments that are included in Appendix D.

8

5 Effects of highways on bats

5.1 Introduction There are 17 resident species of bat in the UK, and the effects of highways on bats will vary according to the species and type of work being undertaken. For instance, some species are more prone to collision with vehicles than others, and feeding habits of some species are greatly influenced by presence of highway lighting. Damage to maternity or hibernation roosts can have catastrophic effects on the local population for all species, and on the national conservation status of rare species.

Major impacts on bats include the following:

• Severance of linear features used as bat commuting routes (during construction and operation). • Collision with vehicles/road traffic mortality (during operation). • Effects of road lighting (during construction and operation). • Changes to/loss of foraging habitat (during construction and operation). • Changes to roosts/roost entrances, and roost destruction (during construction and operation).

In many cases bats make use of existing highway infrastructure for roosting, commuting and feeding. Therefore highway maintenance work, as well as new highway improvements, must take account of bats. Features of potential interest include trees, hedgerows, wetlands, unimproved grassland, scrub, culverts, underpasses, bridges and other structures.

Species distribution is important; different survey method and mitigation may be required for different species because of their individual behaviour and use of habitats. The Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Atlas (Richardson 2000) provides a record of species distribution throughout the UK. Work is also being undertaken in Europe to determine what mitigation has been successful for different species in different habitats. This chapter considers how highways affect bats, and what mitigation might be appropriate.

Depending upon the type of work being undertaken, some of the adverse impacts on bats can be mitigated for by appropriate timing of work. This is because bats generally use different roosts at different times of year, and are inactive when they hibernate in winter (although bats occasionally forage during warmer spells in the winter months).

5.2 Severance of bat commuting routes (flyways/flight paths) 5.2.1 Flyways Most bat species use flyways in order to move between roosting and foraging areas. These are very important for navigation and providing cover from potential predators, such as sparrow hawks and owls.

9

Bats will also forage along flyways as they are commuting. Favoured flyways include tree and scrub lines, hedgerows, watercourses, walls, fences, woodland edge, drainage ditches and even existing roads where there are favourable features alongside. Such features are often part of established routes used by bat colonies. It is thought that juvenile bats learn these routes as they follow their mothers. Some bat species have been recorded living for up to 30 years in the wild, therefore a particular route can become well established for individuals over that time. Distances travelled by bats along these flyways vary between species; Bechstein’s bats generally remain within 1km of the maternity roost (Schofield & Morris 2003), whereas barbastelle bats have been recorded travelling 18km in one night between roosting and foraging habitat (Schofield & Morris 2003). It could be argued that flyways (and foraging areas) for species that do not travel far from the maternity roost are particularly important to retain since they will have limited alternative flyways and do not have the option of travelling further afield to find suitable prey. However, severance of a flyway close to a maternity site can also impact greatly on bats whose principle foraging area is some distance away. Gaps as small as 10m in a flyway may prevent bats from using it (Entwistle et al 2001).

There is no published information to prove a link between bat population numbers and flight line severance (Bickmore 2003). However, Billington (2003a) concludes that “it is possible that casualties caused by the A487 road scheme are contributing to halting or slowing down the increase in size of this colony.” This is of particular concern for species, such as horseshoe bats, that habitually fly lower than 3m above open ground and therefore are more likely to collide with road traffic. If bats cannot reach their foraging areas or are killed on the highway, this can lead to a population decline (Brinkmann et al 2003; Limpens 2005). Bats may use different flyways on their return to the roost. This should be considered when planning surveys (refer to section 6). In some cases (refer to section 7; A487) bats have continued to use severed commuting routes following construction and opening of a new road, which has led to collision with traffic travelling along the new highway. Given the current conservation initiatives and legislation to protect bats (see Section 2.4) such instances are undesirable for any species of bat, and it is important to avoid this scenario. Effective mitigation to assist bats to fly over or under the road safely is therefore essential.

5.2.2 Bat behavioural ecology Different species commute in different ways, but individuals can sometimes modify their behaviour if forced. For instance, in Wales some lesser horseshoe bats have been observed ‘dodging’ traffic, but in the same stretch of road have also collided with traffic (Billington 2003). Long-eared bats (Entwistle et al 1996) and Bechstein’s bats (Schofield & Morris 2003) prefer to fly close to vegetation and within it, rarely crossing open areas to get from the roost to foraging areas. They fly slowly and often feed by gleaning insects directly from the surface of foliage. Greater horseshoe bats prefer to fly 2-10m away from a flyway, preferably under overhanging vegetation, up to 2m above ground (Duverge & Jones 1994). Lesser horseshoes, however, prefer to fly close to flyways and within woodland, up to 1m above ground (Schofield 1996). Common pipistrelle bats will fly over quite open areas but prefer to commute along

10

hedgerows or treelines (Davidson-Watts & Jones in prep). Whiskered bats are associated with rivers and woodland edges. Dense riverside vegetation, parkland and field hedgerows provide suitable habitat (Entwistle et al 2001) and, although they have been recorded flying high (20m above ground), they also swoop to less than a metre above the ground (Bat Conservation Trust leaflet).

5.2.3 Mitigation The success of culverts as bat mitigation in Wales has been summarized by Bickmore (2003). Bach et al (2004) report on bat use of existing tunnels under motorways in central and south Germany; tunnels 4.5m wide, 4m high and 31m long are used for commuting by common pipistrelle, Natterer’s, Bechstein’s, barbastelle, noctule and whiskered/Brandt’s bats. They recorded in another location that common pipistrelle, greater mouse-eared, Natterer’s, Bechstein’s and whiskered/Brandt’s bats passed through tunnels 4m wide, 5m high, and 45m long. In a separate study in Germany looking at greater mouse-eared bats crossing a dual carriageway, 65% of a greater mouse-eared bat colony used a simulated underpass 2m below ground and 8m wide (Furhmann & Kiefer 1996). In Germany the construction of tunnels or green bridges is suggested as a possible solution to commuting route severance, with Bach et al (2004) suggesting that for some species even relatively small tunnels can minimise the fragmentation effect of motorways when they are situated in the right place. They report observations suggesting Natterer’s and Daubenton’s bats are known to use quite low (1.5m) and narrow (2m) tunnels even if they are long (30m); greater mouse-eared bats though were observed to use tunnels more frequently when at least 3.5m high. Brinkmann et al (2003) recommend underpasses of 4.5m high by 4-6m wide for barbastelle bats. Limpens (2005) suggests that there is a relationship between the cross-sectional area of a tunnel and its length when considering how acceptable it will be to bats; the longer the tunnel, the larger the cross section must be.

When investigating the use by bats of existing motorway bridges (linking villages to forests/farmland or linking two forests) in central and south Germany, Bach et al 2004 found that no or few bats used them, even when well connected by hedgerows on both sides of the bridge to the surrounding landscape. They concluded that bats found bridges too open, lacking guidance features or sheltering vegetation or structure along the bridge. In a separate study looking at greater mouse-eared bats, Furhmann & Keifer (1996) constructed an overbridge 2m high and 16m wide, using tarpaulin to give the impression to bats of solid sides; nearly 90% of the nearby greater mouse-eared bat colony used it to cross the road.

Limpens (2005) advocates creating a ‘hop over’, by managing existing or planting new trees where the road is narrow enough for the crowns to almost touch. He says that this is suitable for most pipistrelles and serotines, but that lower flying species can be prevented from crossing low by thickening vegetation to create a barrier to a height of at least 6m.

Diagram 1: For low flying bats, collision with traffic is an important factor to take into account. When crossing open spaces such as roads some bat species such as horseshoe bats fly at a low height and can be killed by moving vehicles. Diagram 1(cross section and plan view) illustrates bats being brought into

11

conflict with traffic when their established flight-line makes them cross at a low height, causing potential collision with road traffic.

Diagram 1 (copyright Herman Limpens)

One approach is to modify the intersection so that bats cross the road at sufficient height to prevent them colliding with vehicles. This can be achieved through careful positioning of enhanced planting both sides of the dissection to encourage bats to fly high over the highway to avoid traffic collisions. Planting should be undertaken well before the dissection is made so that once traffic is using the completed highway the vegetation is tall enough to encourage bats to gain more height before crossing the highway. If lighting is used, shielded lights directed towards the road and away from bat commuting routes should be utilised. Ideally the use of lights on the intersection should be avoided but this is not always possible due to safety considerations.

Diagram 2: This cross section and plan view illustrates how bats can be encouraged to fly above the danger zone by enhanced planting. The plan view illustrates how trees planted along the road on both sides can provide lift and also prevent light shining directly on the bats’ commuting route, thereby minimising disturbance:

12

Diagram 2 (copyright Herman Limpens)

However, species that like to fly in ‘clutter’, e.g., horseshoes, long-eareds, Natterer’s or Bechstein’s bats, must be forced up by solid fencing 4-5m high, and by lighting the road at the location of the hop over (see also A487 case study, Chapter 7).

Diagram 3: Crossing points should be well connected with the existing landscape, i.e. linked with continuous linear elements, such as hedgerows, that are traditionally used by bats for commuting. On either side of the intersection there should be minimal vegetation and lighting so that the intersection point is the darkest area in the landscape:

Diagram 3 (copyright Peter Twisk)

13

For motorways and wide roads, Limpens advocates tall trees in the central reservation to keep bats at height.

Diagram 4: Motorways and dual carriageways can cause additional problems because of the greater width of the road. One method to overcome this problem is to plant trees in the middle of two carriageways (see middle cross section below) so that to bats open areas are reduced. Again, planting needs to be at an enhanced height to reduce the likelihood of bats colliding with road traffic.

Diagram 4 (copyright Peter Twisk)

14

Table 1 below provides guidance on underpass sizes and overpass heights favoured by European species.

Table 1. A summary of suitable passage for species groups (taken from Limpens et al. 2005).

Species are grouped according to their preferred hunting area; from close to the vegetation, via half-open to open hunting areas. Species within each group are ordered from small to large.

Species in group A fly through vegetation and must be brought up to height by means of a hop-over with a ‘closed screen’. Species in groups B and C can be brought up to height using vegetation, and species in group C will follow the crown layer on their own.

Passing over Passing under

Hig

h ov

er la

ndsc

ape

Hop

-ove

r at c

row

n he

ight

Hop

-ove

r veg

etat

ion

Hop

-ove

r veg

etat

ion+

wall

Ove

r or a

long

viad

uct

Culv

erts

(h x

b =

1 x

2 m

)

Brid

ge o

ver w

ater

(h ≤

1 m

)

Tunn

els (h

x b

= 4

x 4

m)

Brid

ge o

ver w

ater

(h ≥

2 m

)

Tunn

els (h

x b

= 6

x 6

m)

Und

er v

iaduc

t (h

> 6

m)

Brid

ge o

ver w

ater

(h >

6 m

)

Lesser horseshoe bat • • • • • • • • •

Geoffroy’s bat • • • • • • • •

Natterer’s bat • • • • • • • • •

A Bechstein’s bat • • • • • • • •

Brown long-eared bat • • • • • • • •

Grey long-eared bat • • • • • • • •

Greater horseshoe bat • • • • • • •

From small to large, species that hunt close to or in vegetation, and formal structures. Flying on the route made easy by vegetation.

Greater mouse-eared bat

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Large species that hunts close to the vegetation, follows structures, but also crosses open areas.

Whiskered bat • • • • • • • • B Brandt’s bat • • • • • • • • Barbastelle • • • • • • • •

From small to large, species that hunt along border structures, and follow structures.

Daubenton’s bat • • • • • • • • •

Pond bat • • •

• • • • • •

From small to large, species that hunt above water, and follow structures.

Soprano pipistrelle • • • • • • • • •

Common pipistrelle • • • • • • • • • Nathusius’s pipistrelle • • • • • • • • •

From small to large, species that hunt along structures out into the half-open surroundings, and follow structures.

Northern bat • • • • • • • • C Parti-coloured bat • • • • • • • • Serotine • • • • • • • • Noctule • • • • • • • •

From small to large, species that hunt in half-open to open surroundings, and sometimes follow structures.

15

5.3 Traffic casualties Little formal work has been undertaken in the UK to establish levels of bat injury and mortality caused by collision with road traffic, but it is considered that traffic casualties are a significant issue for bat populations. Some investigation has been undertaken as part of the monitoring of post-construction schemes and these are discussed under Chapter 7. Returns of bats involved in road traffic accidents (RTAs) from bat hospitals, although not specifically from new road construction schemes, give an insight into the range of species concerned, although traffic casualty numbers in the area are likely to be much higher than recorded for the following reasons:

• Bats recorded are generally picked up by the public from footpaths alongside roads, this being where most people walk. The majority of the road network remains uncovered, particularly trunk roads and motorways.

• Injured bats are not necessarily picked up and remain unrecorded. • Only live injured bats are brought in – dead bats are unrecorded. • Only bats with injuries consistent with vehicle collision (broken humerus, shoulder or wrist) are

recorded as RTAs; many traffic casualties in urban areas are picked up first (and therefore injured further) by cats, and so are recorded as cat casualties.

• Early morning scavengers will take traffic casualties. • Pipistrelle bats form the majority of casualties probably because of their abundance; this could be

further exaggerated because pipistrelle bats are more likely to live in the vicinity of humans and so get picked up.

The following table is a summary of live bat traffic casualties between 1997 and 2005 recorded by a bat hospital that covers the south Surrey/west Kent/north Sussex area; bat casualties were brought in by members of the public and so there is no information on the type of road at which they were injured (see first bullet point above).

Table 2. Live bat traffic casualties from a Sussex bat hospital

Year Species Age Sex Comments 1997 Common pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle Brown long-eared Common pipistrelle

Juvenile Adult Juvenile Juvenile

Male Male Male Male

1998 Brown long-eared Common pipistrelle Bechstein’s Common pipistrelle

Adult Adult Adult Adult

Male Male Female Male

Bat on way to nursery roost

1999 Daubenton’s Adult Male 2000 Brown long-eared Adult Male

16

Year Species Age Sex Comments 2001 Common pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle

Adult Adult Adult Juvenile Adult Adult Juvenile

Male Male Male Female Female Male

2002 Common pipistrelle Noctule

Adult Juvenile

Male Male

2003 Whiskered Juvenile Female 2004 Whiskered Adult Female 2005 Common pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle Adult Adult

Male Male

Year not yet complete

Interestingly, the majority were males. All casualties were in good physical condition apart from their traffic injuries, so general weakness is unlikely to be a factor. Brinkmann et al (2003) suggest that juveniles are more likely to be killed by traffic, but records suggest significantly more adults are actually killed by traffic. This may be because, being more robust, adults are more likely to survive long enough to be picked up after being hit. In addition, the total number of bats brought in varies from year to year and is very weather dependent. To give an idea of the proportion of traffic casualties recorded, for 2005 the following total numbers of bats have been received: January, February, March, April, May = 1 bat per month; June = 9; and July = 14. Traffic casualties make up 7% of the intake so far this year. (Numbers of all casualties (not just RTAs) can rise to 30+ per month in June/July, and the start of 2005 was unusually quiet) (pers comm. J Clark).

A barbastelle traffic casualty was taken to a wildlife hospital in Hertfordshire in 2004. A North Yorkshire bat hospital recently recorded traffic casualties where two brown long-eared bats, and one noctule bat had been hit and carried along on the front of lorries. Other less common species recorded as traffic casualties include grey long-eared and Natterer’s (pers comm. M Brown). Seven lesser horseshoe bat casualties were recorded along the new A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllyfni between the 10th August and 30th November 2003, along with one common pipistrelle and two brown long-eared bats (Billington 2003a), refer to Chapter 7.

Bat traffic casualties can be caused by highway projects for different reasons:

• Bat commuting route is severed (directly or indirectly, eg, by lighting). • New road is placed close to a roost, encouraging bats to use new features parallel with the route

as new flightlines. It is thought that air turbulence caused by fast and large road traffic can suck nearby bats into the path of oncoming vehicles. An increase in traffic close to maternity roosts can increase the likelihood especially of inexperienced juvenile bats being struck.

17

• Lighting can encourage some species (eg, noctules, serotines, pipistrelles and Leisler’s bats) to forage close to highways as their prey is attracted to lighting. Juveniles may be more at risk of getting struck because of their inexperience.

5.3.1 Survey Surveys for RTAs should be undertaken at dawn to avoid casualties being taken by scavengers before they are found. Bats can get caught on vehicles and carried some distance from the impact site. Therefore, survey of a particular stretch of road may not result in all casualties being found.

5.4 Effects of Lighting Many bat species sample light levels prior to emergence from the roost and will emerge only once light levels are low enough following sunset. By discouraging emergence, light near a roost shortens the time available for foraging and can even cause bats to abandon the roost. Species such as horseshoe bats require cover to provide darkness in the surroundings of the roost into which they emerge to feed.

Studies on how lighting affects bat activity have been carried out in northern Europe and North America. Mercury vapour lighting emits a bluish-white light including ultra-violet (UV) and attracts insects. Low-pressure sodium lamps emit monochromatic orange light and are not particularly attractive to insects. High-pressure sodium lamps include mercury vapour and therefore emit some UV and are intermediate in attracting insects. Lighting can, therefore, attract some bat species because of attracting prey, but seems to discourage other species (including Myotis sp., Plecotus sp. and Rhinolophus sp.) because of their preference to forage in darkness (Rydell & Racey 1995). In Suffolk numbers of Natterer’s, whiskered, Daubenton’s and brown long-eared bats fell following installation of street lamps nearby (Jones 2000).

Work carried out by Blake et al (1994) in southern England found more insects flew around white streetlamps than low-pressure sodium lamps, and (mostly pipistrelle) foraging increased around lighting:

Lighting type mean no.of insects/lamp number of bat passes/km

White streetlamps 0.67 3.2

Low pressure sodium 0.083 1.2

Unlit road - 0.7

Pipistrelles are adapted for flight and echolocation in open surroundings, catching prey by aerial hawking, as are noctules and serotines, which have also been observed foraging round streetlamps. Work carried out by Rydell and Racey (1995) found densities of northern bats (Eptesicus nilssonii) along lit roads in built-up areas at 2-5 bats per km, compared with 0.1-0.4 bats per km along unlit roads. Rydell reports that E.

18

nilssonii, when feeding near street lamps, fly back and forth in straight lines, at least 100m along the road before turning back, staying away from surrounding vegetation and 8-15 m above ground level. Occasionally making vertical dives to catch insects, they tend to fly above the lamps most of the time. They seldom cross the light cone except when chasing insects (Rydell & Racey 1995), and this behaviour of avoiding the light cone has been reported for other bat species too. It may be to avoid predators, but further work in this area could inform optimum height for lighting of highways to give bats the best chance of survival.

Why do some species avoid lighting altogether? It is thought that those species whose echolocation is ‘clutter resistant’ and designed for close range rather than long range insect detection (and so are relatively slow fliers) are not able to exploit insects efficiently in open situations such as around a lamp. Being slow fliers, they may also be at more risk from predators – high up and in bright light. Observations have been made of kestrels hunting at night under artificial light along motorways (Jones 2000). Lighting of highways has adverse conservation implications for some species and most of the light shy species are endangered. Plecotus sp., Myotis sp. and Rhinolophus sp. hesitate to cross illuminated areas, and so lit highways/structures can prevent them from using their usual foraging areas. Although UV filters have been suggested to mitigate for bats against lighting (Jones 2000), their effectiveness has been questioned (S Markham, pers comm.). Markham considers that even pipistrelles will avoid levels higher than 20 lux, and that even 1 lux (equivalent to late twilight) is too light for light shy species. It has also been suggested that sections of the M25 should be unlit in order to remove the barrier for bats, bearing in mind that traffic safety regulations must be met. In any event, upward lighting should be minimised, and the fitting of hoods to direct light at an angle less than 70 degrees should be considered (Jones 2000). However, lighting may prove useful to ‘rescue’ dangerous existing highway situations for these species by discouraging them from flying in these areas – more research is needed on this subject, see Chapter 7.

Although highway lighting may help explain the relative success of some bat species (Rydell & Racey 1995), it may also encourage these very species to areas that are unsafe. Lighting can discourage light shy species from commuting to foraging areas. Routes designed to allow passage of bats (e.g. underpasses), need to be kept dark to encourage bats to use them for commuting. Lighting is an issue during construction phase too, and in some cases night time work should not occur if floodlighting is needed during spring, summer and autumn. In Europe, in areas where there are foraging bats, stretches of road are left unlit to avoid isolation of bat colonies.

5.5 Foraging habitats Favoured foraging habitats vary between bat species, and also vary according to the time of year as insect availability changes (Vaughan 1997, Ransome 1996). Although protection of roosts and hibernation sites is important, protection of foraging habitats around these roosts is also important to the survival of bats. Foraging areas for the same species may vary (Entwistle et al 2001) – individuals from larger colonies may commute further than average distances to foraging habitats. Highway schemes can damage foraging

19

habitat either by direct land-take and fragmentation, or indirectly by severing commuting routes from roosts, polluting watercourses and waterbodies and light spillage.

A countrywide study of vesper bat habitat use (Walsh & Harris 1996) showed that bats were consistent in their habitat preferences across contrasting landscapes. Several studies show that bats avoid intensively managed arable landscapes and generally avoid moorland. Favoured habitats are those associated with broadleaved woodland, and pasture is important for several species, e.g. serotine, Leisler’s and greater horseshoe bats. Woodland edge and water bodies are also important foraging areas. A study in Northern Ireland concluded that inland water bodies, deciduous woodland and field boundaries such as tree lines and hedgerows are important habitats for all species (Russ & Montgomery 2002).

Coniferous woodland, although not providing good roosting opportunities, can provide high insect abundance and so is sometimes used by pipistrelles and brown long-eared bats (Entwistle et al 2001).

The importance of aquatic habitats for Daubenton’s and soprano pipistrelles is well documented, but they are also important for most bat species because of the associated high insect abundance. Water quality is likely to affect its usefulness as foraging habitat to bats in different ways. For instance, Vaughan et al (1996) compared bat activity upstream and downstream from sewage outfalls. Although bat activity was lower downstream, Daubenton’s activity was higher downstream, indicating that the prey of Daubenton’s bats may benefit from eutrophication.

Urban landscapes, although not usually presenting ideal foraging habitats, frequently provide ideal roosting habitats, especially for pipistrelle species and serotines (Catto et al 1996). Highway proposals near to and within urban areas must not be assumed not to affect bats. Investigation is still needed here since isolating manmade roosts from foraging habitats, either by severing commuting routes or by directly destroying foraging habitat, is not acceptable and should proceed only if mitigation is likely to be successful.

A brief outline of the variety of foraging habitat required by the species is given below.

The greater horseshoe bat is vulnerable to loss of deciduous woodland and cattle (rather than sheep) pasture (Duverge & Jones 1994). Such habitats with structural diversity (to provide edge habitats and microclimates) are particularly favoured. From maternity colonies they prefer to forage within 4km of the roost (although in Pembrokeshire they have been recorded 14km from the roost), flying less than 2m above the ground along the edge of pastureland using hedgerows, tree-lines or woodland edge, preferring not to fly in the open. In spring they tend to forage in woodland, whilst in summer and autumn they tend to use pasture. Juveniles (first flying in August) prefer to forage over pasture, eating dung beetles.

20

The lesser horseshoe bat requires linear features as corridors along which to commute and forage, particularly at dawn and dusk. Preferred foraging habitats are deciduous woodland, scrub and cattle grazed pasture with interconnecting hedgerows and trees. It has been recorded using green lanes and single-track roads with overhanging vegetation (Schofield 1996). Its prey consists Nematocera (including crane flies, midges (biting and non biting), mosquitoes) Lepidoptera, Trichoptera and Neuroptera. They may continue to forage in mild winter weather.

The Natterer’s bat forages in mature semi-natural deciduous woodlands and tree-lined river corridors, and over grassland. They use night-perches in shrubs or hedgerows to consume larger prey, but don’t tend to forage further than 4-6km away from their day roost (Smith & Racey 2002). Diet is varied, but includes mainly spiders, Diptera (house flies, dung flies, blow flies, midges, crane flies and snipe flies), dung beetles, ichneumons and caddis flies (Smith & Racey 2002).

Whiskered/Brandt’s bats. Brandt’s bat mainly forages in woodland, whereas whiskered bats are more associated with rivers/waterbodies with fairly high hedgerows and small woodlands (Entwistle et al 2001). Consequently, whiskered bats feed mainly on Diptera like tipulids, chironomids and moth-flies, whereas the Diptera fed on by Brandt’s bats include also Brachycera as well as Lepidoptera and spiders (Vaughan 1997).

The Daubenton’s bat forages mainly above water, often taking prey from the surface. They prefer slow flowing rivers or large water bodies with a smooth surface and sheltered by trees or hedgerows on the bankside. Generally they forage within 3km of the roost, but have been known to forage up to 15km away (Altringham 2003). Furthermore, roosts often change frequently in late spring, prior to young being born. Prey is inevitably water based and includes Ceratopogonidae and Diptera – tipulids and gall midges.

The soprano pipistrelle bat forages mainly over watery habitats, such as lakes, rivers and wetlands of good water quality, although they will forage around trees away from rivers. They tend to travel up to 2km from the maternity roost to forage. This is generally further than the common pipistrelle and likely to be because of the more specialized nature of its habitat. Prey is mainly water based and includes Ceratopogonidae and chironomids. Roosting is often associated with human dwellings (Davidson-Watts & Jones 2005).

The common pipistrelle bat is more general in its foraging habitat, and uses lakes, rivers, hedgerows, woodland and agricultural land with suitable habitat connectivity. They often forage in urban and residential areas. They tend to forage within about 1.5km of their maternity roost, possibly because, being generalists, they can find all they require within this range (I Davidson-Watts pers comm.). They take a wide range of prey, including those of soprano pipistrelle plus tipulids.

21

Bechstein’s, brown and grey long eared bats forage in mature broadleaved woodland but will forage along tree lines also (Entwistle et al 2001). All eat Lepidoptera and glean insects and spiders direct from vegetation surfaces. The Bechstein’s prey also includes Diptera, particularly tipulids. All generally forage within 2km of the maternity roost, so further reduction of woodland that hosts these species will have devastating effects on the colony since the bats’ limited range limits their choice of alternative foraging areas in these instances (Schofield & Morris 2003). Whilst all three species use woodland for roosting (using rot/old woodpecker holes) brown and grey long-eared bats are also associated with human dwellings.

Noctule and Leisler’s bats are fast flying bats that forage quite high up over deciduous woodland, pasture, watercourses and lakes, also using hedgerows, tree lines and woodland edges. They tend to avoid foraging in very urban habitats, but will forage high up around street lamps; Leisler’s has been recorded commuting up to 13km to forage, noctules up to 26km (Entwistle et al 2001). Roosts of both species tend to be in mature trees. Prey of both bats includes dung flies, Lepidoptera and Coleoptera.

The serotine bat generally forages within woodland canopy, particularly around woodland edge and along treelines. They are regularly recorded foraging around street lamps and have been recorded foraging less than 2m above ground level amongst shrubs. Cattle pasture is particularly important for this species, its prey being formed of Aphodius in late summer, dung beetles, ground beetles and cockchafers earlier in the year. Lepidoptera, tipulids and chironomids are also taken. Although they have been recorded foraging up to 14km from the maternity roost, most forage within 5km (Catto et al 1996).

The barbastelle bat is believed to prefer ancient deciduous woodland and woodland containing water bodies although it also forages in other mixed habitats. Rides and glades within woodland are important and they have also been recorded foraging above cliffs adjacent to a Norfolk beach (J Goldsmith, pers comm.). Its diet consists mainly of small Lepidopteran species, but it will also glean spiders and other insects from vegetation surfaces. Woodland containing over mature trees is important, particularly as adult females seem to need several roosts, often under peeling bark or within tree fractures (Greenaway 2001). Furthermore, for nursery colonies, foraging areas and hedgerows linking roosts to these areas are very important within 3km of maternity roosts for feeding, although radio tracking studies by Vincent Wildlife Trust have shown individuals to forage up to 18km away from the day roost (Vincent Wildlife Trust 2002).

5.6 Damage/disturbance to roosts Damage to roosts has serious implications for local bat populations, as several hundred breeding females may be unable to reproduce for at least a year, and possibly longer (BCT 2003). Roosting requirements vary according to species and time of year. Knowledge of roost requirements varies between species; less is generally known about tree-roosting species as roosts are harder to find than those in buildings (indicated in Greenaway 2001). Potential roost sites include buildings, trees (hollows, splits, woodpecker

22

holes, cracks in branches, under loose bark, within thick ivy, within complex root structures) (BCT 2000), highway structures (not just bridges), underground sites (caves, cellars, underground bunkers, culverts and underpasses), dry stone walls and rock fissures. Any of these structures likely to be affected should be surveyed for roosting bats (refer to Mitchell-Jones 2004). Indirect effects on a roost (e.g. severance of commuting route between roost and foraging area, removal of vegetation near the roost entrance, or lighting in the vicinity of the roost) must also be considered (refer to Chapter 6).

Underground sites are generally used for hibernation, although both horseshoe bats use warm underground sites as maternity roosts (English Nature 2003). Maternity and hibernation sites may be found in any of the aforementioned structures, and the entrance of underground sites may also form important autumn swarming/mating sites for bats from a wide area (English Nature 2004).

5.6.1 Bridges Billington & Norman (1997) undertook a study into the use of bridges by bats in Cumbria. Over 2,500 bridges were surveyed, and 12.5% were confirmed as bat roosts; a further 41% had suitable crevices but no proven roost. Daubenton’s bat was most frequently identified (using 3.6% of bridges) and Natterer’s bat was recorded in 1% of bridges. Other species found using bridges included pipistrelle, brown long-eared and whiskered/Brandt’s bat. Two roosts were sizeable with 40 and 100 Natterer’s bats. 75% of the roosts were located in the span of the bridge. The main requirement for a potential roost seemed to be that the crevice should be at least 10cm deep and protected from the weather. Bridges over watercourses had the most roosts recorded, particularly if the water was slow flowing and associated with broadleaved trees. Bridges less than 2.5m high were less likely to be used and concrete span bridges provided fewer roosting opportunities than stone span bridges; however, concrete span bridges must not be overlooked, and it is possible that in areas with fewer stone bridges concrete bridges will be more often used by bats. It was also found that numbers of roosts recorded in bridges increased from August onwards (G Billington, pers comm.), with September being the peak month for recording numbers of bridge roosts. This ties in with tree and other post-maternity roosts, as maternity colonies have by then split up and sought alternative roosts.

Shiel (1999) found 51% of the 364 bridges in Cork/Waterford had roosts, and a further 11% had evidence of use by bats. Again, Daubenton’s and Natterer’s bats were the most commonly recorded.

Maintenance works that may affect bats in old stone bridges commonly include:

• infill of holes in stonework by pointing with concrete mortar; • spraying with shotcrete concrete; and • pressure grouting.

23

Any of these can entomb or crush bats inside, and prevent access to roost spaces. Cleaning out stonework with high-pressure water before pointing or pressure grouting can also kill bats. Sand-blasting of steel bridges requiring rust treatment or painting can injure bats. Saddling* of bridges can affect roosting bats if a) there is extra vibration from excavation equipment, and b) if concrete infill reaches roost crevices (Billington & Norman 1997).

*Saddling is the term used for strengthening of a bridge by removal of the road surface and ‘fill’ material back to the masonry, and addition of a compacted sub-base or concrete, sometimes with works to masonry being undertaken (Turner 1995).

5.6.2 Trees Roosts within trees can be particularly difficult to pinpoint with detectors, especially since roosts of some species are transient. For instance, barbastelle bats appear to move roost frequently before giving birth, and will also move roost after giving birth. However, bats remain loyal to the trees that provide roosting opportunities, and removal of these could have serious implications for the colony. Careful survey of trees due for removal needs to take place, keeping in mind that they could be used as maternity, hibernation or mating sites. Implications for surrounding roosts of the loss of trees can be ascertained only when information is available regarding how individual roosts function within the area (Bickmore 2003).

Maintenance programmes for trees for health & safety issues must also take into account their possible use by bats; in some cases it is possible to make a tree safe, whilst still retaining the roost. A noctule roost in a Hertfordshire tree has been successfully retained by strapping the severed branch containing the actual roost to the tree (P Briggs, pers comm.).

5.6.3 Bat boxes A study of the type of bat boxes available and their efficacy as alternative roosts was undertaken by Swift in 2004. It found that both wood and woodcrete boxes have different advantages over each other, for instance although woodcrete has the huge advantage of durability for the bats using it, large wooden boxes with an inner roosting chamber provide the best insulation. Flat shaped boxes with narrow crevices should be used with care in winter as there is a danger that individual bats using them could freeze. Nursery colonies of species preferring cooler roosting conditions (e.g. long-eared and Natterer’s bats) may use small boxes, but bats preferring warmer conditions, such as pipistrelles, prefer artificially heated houses as maternity roosts. Heated bat houses are designed to replace maternity roosts lost from buildings but are unlikely to be considered for general bat box schemes; trials are encouraging, and the design is now considered useful for actual conservation situations. Further details can be obtained by contacting Bat Conservation Trust in the first instance.

24

Bat boxes require ongoing maintenance, such as cleaning out of droppings and old birds’ nests, repair and replacement. There is evidence that bat populations in an area can become dependent on them (Swift 2004), so neglected bat box schemes can be detrimental.

5.7 Summary Highway projects should aim to avoid any impact on bat roosting, commuting or foraging habitat where possible. However, effects are not always avoidable. Even temporary changes to the landscape or existing highway infrastructure can have permanent adverse effects on bats, and so it is important to assess the impact of construction works, as well as the finished project, and provide appropriate mitigation.

25

6 Stages of assessment

In order to conserve bats effectively across Europe and to meet statutory obligations to biodiversity and UK legislation, there is a clear need for establishing both quality control mechanisms and appropriate levels of expertise within bat survey work. Currently there is uncertainty about the type of survey needed, the level of survey effort required, and how these differ according to the habitat being surveyed, the time of year and likely species being surveyed for.

This chapter summarises output from the Bat Conservation Trust’s three-day workshop that is particularly relevant for highway design proposals. Thirty bat experts from across Europe and from UK government agencies and departments attended in December 2004. The aim of the workshop was to establish good practice standards for surveying bats for three main areas – woodlands and trees, buildings and artificial structures, and linear developments (especially highways). Obviously highway proposals could require survey of all three main areas since existing highway estate and land-take for new proposals includes artificial structures and trees/woodland. The following draft best practice for highway schemes was formulated at the Workshop but will continue to evolve as knowledge and thinking develops.

6.1 Desk study assessment This should be undertaken at Stage 1 of the DMRB environment assessment process.

The main objectives for a desk study assessment are:

• to review any existing information on bats within the study area; • to identify any potential impacts on bats; • to make an initial evaluation of a site or surrounding area (in terms of bats); • to identify whether there is a need for further survey work, and if so, what potential methods

should be used; • to avoid delays and ensure value for money through planned timing; and • to assist decisions on route options/alternatives in early stages.

It is recommended that a desk study assessment be undertaken when the following work is proposed:

• Construction of a new highway; • Highway improvements including but not exclusively road widening, road straightening,

upgrading lighting and other road infrastructure, such as footbridges, pavements and other built structures;

• Highway maintenance of built structures; or • Highway maintenance of the soft estate.

26

The following work should be included as part of the desk study assessment:

6.1.1 Collation and review of existing information i) A range of information sources should be reviewed to help identify potential habitats for bats and impacts that may arise from a proposed scheme. These should include:

• Aerial photographs/OS maps/habitat survey map (e.g. Phase 1) • National species distribution maps (BCT Bat Atlas) • For built structures associated with existing highways, structural records for the bridge should be

checked for cracks, crevices, etc. • Local Bat Group/Biological Records Centre records of known roosts and bat sightings • Highways Agency or other environmental databases

ii) Consultations with additional organisations that may hold data on bats should also be undertaken. Consultees could include:

• Wildlife Trusts • Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations • County/District Council • Bat Conservation Trust • Local landowners/residents • Local caving groups

When considering the potential effects of a new highway scheme, road improvements or maintenance works it is important to ensure that desk study assessment considers potential effects at a scale relevant to the type of work, potential impact and the species that could be affected. In particular consideration should be given to designated sites and habitat connectivity, including movement between known summer and winter roosts. For new highway projects or highway improvements each proposed route or option can be compared in terms of potential roost, foraging areas and key linear features.

There is likely to be a wide variation in the distances that bats will travel depending on the species, the purpose of the journey and the surrounding landscape. Many species regularly forage between five and ten kilometres from a roost; seasonal journeys to swarming sites can be up to 40km (Parsons et al 2003); and journeys to hibernation sites over 100km.

Whilst it is recognised that it is unlikely that assessment work will be undertaken over larger scales, it is important that consideration is given to the wider landscape. It is recommended that for most species a distance of 5-10km from the proposed works should be considered for landscape assessment. The actual

27

area that would be surveyed is normally likely to be at a smaller scale; typically between 500m and 2km from the proposed works depending on the scale and potential effects.

6.2 Initial walkover survey In addition to the desk study it is recommended that a preliminary site survey be undertaken during DMRB Stage 1 assessment to identify/confirm potential features within the survey area that could be used by bats.

The preliminary survey is likely to require a broad scale approach to identify the possible functions for each part of survey area. For example, for roosting, foraging, commuting. Daylight walkover surveys can be done on foot, bicycle or driving, depending on the area to be covered. The relative importance/potential of features of the survey area should be assessed.

Three levels – high, medium and low importance for bats could be used to generally classify key areas of the survey area (the lists contained in Table 3 are not exhaustive):

Table 3. Features of importance for bats

Features (high) Features (medium) Features (low)

Underground sites Drainage ditches Intensive arable Ancient woodland Coniferous woodland Ancient hedgerow Dry stone walls River valleys Small field systems with low intensity pasture

Key linear features hedgerows forest edge rides through forest watercourses drainage ditches (sometimes)

fences walls

Buildings, barns, etc Bridges

6.3 Field survey The information collated and reviewed as part of the desk study assessment should be used to identify the extent of survey work required to more accurately assess the use of the landscape by bats. A broad scale

28

approach to survey should be undertaken at DMRB Stage 2 assessment, to identify important features and enable a favoured option to be chosen. At Stage 3, more detailed survey will be required to enable an evaluation of the importance of the area for bats and enable impacts to be assessed in terms of their significance of effect.

Survey should aim to identify major flight routes, favoured foraging areas and roosts that will be affected. Surveyors should use the results of the desk study to inform the extent of the field survey. Surveyors should use this information and their judgement to target areas of potential importance but also ensure sufficient coverage of all features to enable robust conclusions to be drawn. It may be best to start with a wide scale approach to identify areas of high bat activity and then focus effort on these areas to gain an understanding of how bats are using them during the year.

Table 4 below recommends appropriate survey periods for different survey methods (adapted from Limpens 2005).

Table 4. Recommended survey periods and number of survey rounds for the different methods to survey bat occurrence and landscape use in development and planning, and EIA.

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Sound & flight observation using bat detector

• • • • • • •

Maternity roosts and dawn swarming

• • • •

Autumn mating swarming/singing at roosts

• • •

Netting in hunting area • ∗ ∗ • •

Inspection of attics & buildings • ∗ ∗ •

Inspection of bird and bat boxes ∗ ∗ •

Inspection of underground sites •

Inspection of trees with endoscope • ∗ ∗ •

29

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Netting at underground sites • • •

Radio-tagging ∗ ∗

Publicity

Legend:

Most effective period

Survey possible

• Survey round recommended

∗ No checking in order to minimize disturbance

A bat ecologist with experience of highway projects and potential mitigation should design the survey and lead the fieldwork and members of the survey team should be able to identify most bat species with detectors.

Broad-band time-expansion and/or frequency division detectors should be used to detect all species and increase the confidence of species identified using sonogram recordings.

A draft survey method/species summary table is attached at Appendix E.

6.3.1 Flight paths All potential flight paths of bats affected by the proposed routes of a new highway or road improvement scheme should be surveyed to determine if and how they are used. Evening activity surveys should be undertaken on three to five separate occasions between May and September. These should also be backed up with some all night or dawn surveys. Static automated bat detectors may be used to complement the use of hand-held detectors although these have limitations/constraints, such as interference/vandalism by third parties, no visual identification or directional information is available and some calls may not be picked up. Automated detector use is more appropriate on confined flight lines such as under culverts or along hedgerows.

30

Mist-netting/harp-trapping should be considered if there is a likelihood of rarer elusive species, such as Bechstein’s bat, or to determine specific foraging areas and flight lines of bats from an important roost.

6.3.2 Woodland and trees Where woodlands, particularly deciduous woodlands, are affected by the proposed new highway or road improvements surveys should seek to identify the use of the woodland by bats for roosting and foraging and commuting routes into and out of the woodland. All deciduous woodland within 1km of the proposed road should be surveyed to assess bat use. All trees with medium to high potential for bat roosts that will be lost, or within 50m of the working area, should be surveyed for bat roosts throughout the year.

Best practice should avoid any effects on ancient woodland. If this is not the case higher levels of survey effort are likely to be required because of the importance of this habitat.

6.3.3 Wetlands Wetlands are important foraging habitats for a range of bat species and linear wetlands (watercourses) also act as commuting routes. All watercourses crossed by the new highway or proposed road improvement scheme should be surveyed to determine their importance for foraging and commuting. Wetlands within 1km of the proposed scheme should be considered for survey.

6.3.4 Underground and built structures All structures within 50m of the route and any structures within 100m with a high potential for bats should be surveyed for roosts. Structures and buildings up to 2km from the project that have a high potential to support important bat roosts should also be considered for survey. Specialist equipment such as endoscopes may be required. Their use as hibernation, maternity and mating roosts throughout the year should be considered.

Bridges and underpasses should also be considered as potential commuting routes.

Information on survey of structures is given currently in Mitchell-Jones (2004) and in BCT survey guidelines (in prep).

6.4 Mitigation Following the choice of a preferred option and the appropriate field survey any necessary mitigation should be considered. This should be incorporated into the detailed design stage rather than as a later add-on. Although agreements with adjoining landowners can add value, essential mitigation must be within the jurisdiction of the highway authority to ensure its long-term viability. This may require compulsory purchase of land.

31

Mitigation will be required during construction as well as during operation. It should be constructed and ideally shown to be working prior to opening of the project. In the case of commuting routes and roost replacement, consideration could be given to early installation of mitigation and then artificially discouraging bats from using their established routes/roosts in order to see whether the mitigation is likely to be successful before the scheme is in place.

Existing mitigation is considered in Chapter 7 as part of case study reviews.

32

7 Case studies

The following UK case studies, where bat mitigation has been incorporated into road schemes, have been identified and reviewed as part of this commission.

7.1 A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass, Cumbria Mitigation includes bat houses, a wire bridge, bat boxes, high fencing to deflect bats, tree planting and tree retention.

A new route that now bisects Scale Beck woodland was identified in September 2000 to be important as a commuting and foraging site for six species (common and soprano pipistrelles, brown long-eared, whiskered/Brandt’s, Daubenton’s and Natterer’s bats). (It is understood also that some bat roosts were to be lost because of the highway works, and we are awaiting further information from the Highways Agency.)

By July 2001, 20 American style ‘bat houses’ had been installed into the wood to mitigate for the loss of tree roosting sites. A temporary ‘ribbon’ bridge had been put across the line of the new road in order to provide a link between the bisected parts of the woodland. This consisted of three sets of posts each supporting four nylon ribbons across the corridor (at this stage neither the thickness of the ribbon or bridge span is known). Thirty-three of the 35 bats recorded on the survey night followed the ribbon bridge across the clear-felled area, with average height being 3.4m above ground level, and some at 2m above ground level. However, although survey in July 2001 recorded the original six species plus a noctule, there was a 77% reduction in the number of bat calls in the area. No firm conclusion could be drawn as to why. Another survey was planned for September 2001 (Billington 2001a).

In September 2001 another survey was undertaken, following the removal of the lower ribbons in an attempt to raise the flight height of the bats above traffic height. Two metre high mesh security fencing had also been erected either side of the clearance corridor at the woodland edges as a trial for the permanent solid fencing to encourage bats to fly above traffic height. Survey results recorded only three species (soprano pipistrelle, a Myotis sp. and possibly brown long-eared bats), and activity levels had declined by 99%, with only two bats using the ‘ribbon’ bridge (compared with 12 in July 2000)(Billington 2001b).

In October 2001 the same three species were detected, and activity levels had increased slightly since September with eight bats crossing the clear felled area, three using the ‘ribbon’ bridge. The height at which they were crossing increased slightly to 3.8m above ground level (Billington 2001c).

33

By the July 2002 survey, the three sets of four ribbons had been reinstated across the clearing, and the 2m high fence was still in place. Five species were recorded, 25 individual passes, of which 90% crossed using the ‘ribbon bridge’.

The 20 American style bat houses were also checked, of which 11 were either in use or had been used by bats. Three were damaged.

The bypass opened to traffic in December 2002 by which time total bat mitigation amounted to 20 bat houses in the woodland, 2m high fencing either side of the road adjacent to the woodland, a wire bridge across the road consisting of two sets of 3 wires with discs to assist echolocation. (A drawing showing construction of the wire bridge, and a photograph is attached at Appendix F). Six artificial roosts, the detail of which is not currently available, were incorporated into a nearby watercourse culvert.

In July 2003 survey results show 44 bats crossed the road before midnight and 45 around dawn. Twenty-eight of the bats followed the wire bridge, i.e. 31%, compared with over 90% (33 bats) in July 2001 using the bridge when it was of temporary ribbon construction. Average height was 4.2m above ground level (cf 3.7m before the trees were felled); this is within the traffic zone and traffic casualties could therefore be occurring. Species recorded were common, soprano and Nathusius’ pipistrelles, brown long-eared and Myotis sp.

The bat box check revealed that 19 were either used or had been used by bats since their installation. One box had been removed (probably by vandals) and at least five of the boxes needed maintenance because of woodpecker damage, nests or wasps.

Checking of the culvert revealed no bats using the roost crevices (Billington 2003).

7.1.1 Discussion and conclusions It appears to date that the wire bridge is not as successful as the temporary ribbon bridge. Bat activity is significantly less than it was prior to the clear felling. Many bats are crossing at traffic height, risking collision with vehicles. Following recommendations by the ecological surveyor that the fencing either side of the road should be raised to 4m height and the size of the discs increased to assist echolocation, a meeting was held in March 2004 between the surveyor and HA. It was agreed at the meeting that the discs would be replaced with targets (further information is awaited at the time of writing) suspended from the wires to guide the bats and allow red squirrels to use the bridge. It was also agreed that ropes would be attached from the bridge towers to the woodland to assist squirrel and bat use. It was considered that it would be difficult to raise the height of fencing because of vandalism problems. Early morning surveys for bat RTAs were recommended to commence once the further mitigation had been put in. The bat boxes were to be repaired (source: informal file note of scheme meeting).

34

In May 2004 the mitigation work was audited by Capita. They found parts of the fencing had been broken down, and apparently this vandalism recurs after its repair. Although not damaged, the underpass wildlife ledge was covered with broken glass, drinks cans and rubbish. Locals say this is its normal condition, so it may be best for bats if they do not roost here. There was no sign of tree retention or planting in the specified locations that were seemingly part of recommended bat mitigation (information on this proposed mitigation could not be obtained at the time of writing this review). Capita states that bat surveys should be carried out for bat-specific planting or tree retention, leading to further recommendations if appropriate. Capita acknowledged that the bat (and squirrel) wire bridge was still subject to adjustment (Capita 2004).

Further information has been requested from Area 13 on the follow-up to requirements, this will be included when it is received.

It is recommended that this scheme should be further monitored in order to establish whether the wire bridge can be improved and considered successful, together with the other suggested mitigation proposed. RTA survey could help with the assessment of whether this form of mitigation can be advised for other locations.

7.2 Blackwater Valley Road, Surrey This is a local authority scheme. Mitigation includes a bat roost cave, bat boxes, landscape planting, lighting issues and new waterbodies.

Carried out as mitigation for the A331 Blackwater Valley, this cave construction was completed in November 1995 to replace roost sites that were to be lost with the destruction of the culvert that took the river under the canal. The design consisted of a flooded underground tunnel, together with a hot chamber suitable for breeding. The cave is on a bare island, but unfortunately the trees on the bank-side are in private ownership and not sensitively managed for wildlife. Monitoring of the cave has been undertaken regularly but not excessively (to limit disturbance); since completion in 1995, 24 visits have been made with at least one every winter. Temperature and humidity were monitored in the cave for five years, leading to internal modifications to improve conditions.

Intensive transect monitoring for survey of the surroundings was set up in 1995 in the Lakeside Park/Spring Lakes area, while road construction was in progress. The project was overseen by the Bat Conservation Trust; heterodyne detectors were used at specific points and passes of Daubenton’s bats in a ten second period recorded. Other species were also noted. Sites monitored were those affected by the road construction, namely Spring Lakes (26 monitoring points), River Blackwater (3 points), Basingstoke Canal (23 points) and Lakeside Park New Ponds (23 points); twenty five transects were undertaken with weekly visits between May and November 1995. Less extensive survey transects of the area have been undertaken since in 2000, 2001 and 2003.

35

In 1992, 24 standard design wood bat boxes (Bat Conservation Trust, 1997) were erected prior to road construction. In 1996, 15 Schwegler woodcrete bat boxes were erected on eight trees in 1996, and a further four boxes have been erected since. Four boxes were placed under a new road bridge over the river. Currently there are 9 wood boxes and 22 woodcrete boxes in place. Monitoring of the boxes has been undertaken regularly to enable removal of birds’ nests, replacement of damaged boxes and relocation of boxes not being used after three or more years. A woodcrete hibernation box (Schwegler 1FW) was erected adjacent to a lake, away from the road for public safety reasons. Eight others were put up by the local bat group on nearby local nature reserves.

7.2.1 Results The cave has remained scarcely used by bats. A few droppings have been found since 1997 indicating bat activity within the cave but not confirming it as a roost site. Monitoring of environmental conditions show modification to the internal layout has successfully created suitable temperature and humidity for both summer and winter use, but extensive habitat degradation around the site during road construction may have delayed bats using the site. Further modifications to the inside of the tunnel are being considered.

Common and soprano pipistrelle, and Daubenton’s bats were recorded using the area quite extensively in 1995, and noctules were recorded on four nights. (Natterer’s and serotines had been recorded prior to the 1995 surveys, but had not been recorded since.) The surveys between 2000 and 2003 recorded common and soprano pipistrelles, Daubenton’s, brown long-eared and noctule bats, but interestingly, bats were avoiding areas with strong lighting. The road is therefore acting as a barrier to cross-valley bat commuting; a few common pipistrelles were crossing the road where tree growth is close to both sides of the road. Pipistrelles (species unknown) and Daubenton’s bats were crossing the road using the river passing underneath. Daubenton’s bats are still active on sections of the canal that were drained to construct the aqueduct, but appear reluctant to cross the aqueduct. Retained mature trees are important for foraging pipistrelles, as are bridge structures associated with the river. The newly created waterbodies and species-rich grassland associated with the road have enriched the landscape for bats and are important for foraging and commuting.

56% of the woodcrete bat boxes were used until 2003 when extensive tree felling occurred on private land surrounding the site; by the following autumn only 16% of these boxes were used. Of the wooden boxes, although use was low to start with, by September 2003, 17 of the 29 boxes were being used. Daubenton’s bats have been found roosting in the boxes under the river bridge. The 1FW boxes erected on nearby local nature reserves have been successful with a total of 56 noctules recorded in winter 2004. Numbers of hibernating bats seem to be increasing at 10% per annum, and this forms one of the few known noctule hibernation roosts. They are also using the boxes for breeding. The 1FW box erected adjacent to the lake has not been used and is due to be relocated. Monitoring of the site is ongoing.

36

7.2.2 Discussion and conclusions The combination of mitigation measures has enabled this site to remain important for bats. However, loss of mature habitat due to road construction and removal by the adjacent landowner has affected the woodland bats. Planting should be strengthened to reduce light spillage outside the road, and also to improve habitat around some of the waterbodies. Bat boxes have been more successful than the tunnel, although felling of trees on privately owned land appeared to reduce some bat box use significantly; this emphasises the need for strengthening planting within the ownership of the local authority. Further adjustments to the tunnel and installation of a data logger are proposed.

7.3 Sirhowy Enterprise Way, Abergavenny Mitigation involves a wire bridge and lighting.

(At the time of writing the assessment and monitoring survey reports have not yet been obtained. Once these are received they will be added.)

This highway forms part of a new route being constructed along a disused railway cutting. It is understood that one ‘wire bridge’ has already been erected over a contra-flow, and was designed for light-shy species. It appears more solid than the A66 (a photograph is attached at Appendix G) with two steel bars spanning the road (more noticeable in landscape terms). It is understood that the client, Caerphilly Borough Council, is pleased with the results. There is concern, however, that this is not being centrally co-ordinated, and other works may impact on the success of the bridge. For instance, there was an overhanging branch that ran parallel with the wire bridge that would have contributed to its success. However, this branch has now been removed for health and safety (H&S) reasons, so it is important to survey the bridge since this work has been done.

It is also understood that a new underpass is being designed in this vicinity, principally for dormice, that could benefit bats. However, this has been postponed because of problems with removal of foraging grounds by another scheme. It is hoped that the foraging on the roost side of the road can be improved to negate the need to put in an overbridge here. Dormice will be mitigated for with the new underpass, which will include a dead hedge (A Jones pers comm.).

7.4 A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllyfni Mitigation involves fencing, lighting and planting

These works concern road improvements of A487 in vicinity of Glynllifon Special Area for Conservation (SAC). A lesser horseshoe colony has been recorded for 40 years roosting in a cellar 1.4km to the west of the road, and this colony has historically always foraged on land to the east of the now upgraded A487. Road construction commenced in January 2000, with the stretch affecting the bats being opened in September 2001. Although initial survey was undertaken in 1997 before construction, bat mitigation has

37

been adjusted each year since it was opened as bats have been flying low over the road with unacceptably high bat traffic casualty levels resulting. Adjustments to the bat mitigation have been complex and continuous, to encourage bats to use safe crossing points and avoid collision with traffic. Full details are in the referenced report, but a brief summary follows:

In 2001 two and four metre high fencing, high gates and planting were added to bat crossing points at Glynllifon Culvert and Groeslon. Wide verges and lighting trials were put in to direct bats towards safer crossing points. In 2002 ‘hook’ returns were fitted to some fencing adjacent to Glynllifon culvert, and around culverts at Afon Carrog and Groeslon to deter bats from rising over fences, to encourage use of the culvert; additional fencing, planting and light shielding were installed adjacent to Bethesda Bach Bridge, and further lighting trials undertaken, using festoon lighting at Groeslon. In 2003 permanent low-level bollard lights were installed between Groeslon crossing and Bethesda Bach Bridge together with additional planting to maintain continuous illumination to encourage bats to use safer crossing points; further planting was carried out to improve flight corridors, and yet further planting to improve flight connections to existing culvert entrances. In 2004 an earth bank was proposed with planting to extend the tree canopy safely towards the road to raise the height of bats flying over the road. An attempt at creating a flight corridor over a footbridge has been made; metal sheets have been attached to the side of the footbridge to shield it from vehicle lights, and additional planting on both sides of the road connect existing hedgerows up to the bridge.

7.4.1 Results Six bat species were recorded during the 2003 surveys – common, soprano and Nathusius’ pipistrelle, Myotis sp./long-eared/barbastelle, noctule/Leisler’s/serotine and lesser horseshoe bats. During August and September ten bat traffic casualties were found (one common pipistrelle, two brown long-eared and seven lesser horseshoe bats). It was found that peak bat casualties coincided with increased traffic flows in September; in early August traffic rises from 73 vehicles to 141 per hour over two weeks (when peak numbers of bats emerge and when traffic casualties are first recorded). In early September traffic flow increases to about 150 vehicles per hour, rising to 190 per hour by late September. This is when the most bat traffic casualties were found.

The bollard lighting was successful in preventing bats from crossing the road and directing about 24 bats underneath a safe crossing that had not been used before the bollard lighting. Bats were observed flying over the road in places, particularly north of Bethesda Bridge where fencing is not effective.

7.4.2 Discussion and conclusions The fencing is considered to have failed to stop lesser horseshoe bats crossing the road in those locations. Consideration has been given to cladding a footbridge with solid sides to create a dark corridor over the road, with planting to encourage the bats to use it. If this were unsuccessful then providing a complete cover over the footbridge may be more effective, although human safety issues would have to be

38

considered. The bat consultant has suggested constructing a new culvert on the line of the original bat commuting route; he thinks it is highly likely that it would work, and that in time the fencing could be dispensed with (Billington 2003a). Lighting seems effective in directing lesser horseshoes to use safer crossing points.

7.5 A477 Sageston to Redberth Improvement Mitigation involves the extension of an existing underpass, two bat underpasses and landscape planting.

The scheme was opened to traffic in August 2002. The scheme includes two bat underpasses installed to enable horseshoe and other bat species to pass under a new embankment. The underpasses were of an “Armco” design and have since been used by small numbers of horseshoe bats and other species. The dimensions of both culverts are 2m high, by 3m wide and of 50m length. Both had planting and earth-shaping to funnel the bats to the culverts. At the location of the extended culvert, lighting of a road junction was installed in autumn 2002. Surveys of the extended culvert showed light spillage from lights on the same side of the culvert was significant at one end of the culvert; changing the level of bat usage and the behaviour of the bats involved.

Survey at the culvert in 2002 recorded high levels of greater horseshoe activity throughout the season. By contrast, after opening of the road in 2002, the 2003 survey showed greatly reduced levels of activity, with no greater horseshoe passes recorded on three nights.

7.5.1 Discussion and conclusions It was considered likely that the reduction in greater horseshoe bat activity was caused by the introduction of lighting at one end of the culvert. Horseshoe bats that were observed using the culvert seemed to modify their behaviour in response to the lighting by hesitating before flying faster and lower between unlit areas.

In order to mitigate for the lighting at this location, it has been recommended by the bat consultant that either the lighting is realigned in this vicinity, or baffles are installed on the lighting column to minimise light spill, together with screening the culvert either by vegetation or fencing type panels. Further monitoring was recommended for April/May 2005 (Cresswell Associates 2004).

7.6 A39 Glyn Valley Mitigation involved the erection of Schwegler bat boxes to replace felled tree roosts.

A short section of the A38 near Bodmin Parkway Railway Station was subject to an underpinning scheme during summer and autumn 2001 following road subsidence. The scheme involved clear felling a section of woodland adjacent to the A38 to enable access and installation of the necessary infrastructure to support the deteriorating road surface.

39

Mitigation involved provision of ten Schwegler woodcrete boxes on the remaining trees in order to provide alternative roosting environments for any bats displaced by the works. The boxes were erected in October 2001.

Half of the boxes were used by two species after one year in place.

7.7 Future case studies The following are proposed, incomplete or as yet unmonitored schemes with bat mitigation proposed that could be investigated when operational. The projects have been broken down by HA operational area (for England) and other respective countries. Not all English projects are HA projects.

England

7.7.1 Area 1 The Barnstaple Western Bypass (Devon County Council scheme) will affect bat commuting routes. An underpass, lighting, habitat creation and fencing are proposed as mitigation. The Dobwalls Bypass will affect bat commuting routes and roosts. A wire bridge, adapted lighting and bat box provision has been proposed as mitigation. The A30 Dunheved Bridge will be subject to maintenance works for which bat mitigation will be implemented because it contains a roost. Daubenton’s, common and soprano pipistrelles will be affected. The mitigation proposed includes erection of 14 woodcrete boxes on the bridge piers and in the adjacent woodland. Application has been made for a Defra licence.

The A30 Blowinghouse Viaduct contains a bat roost for lesser horseshoe and pipistrelle bats. The Viaduct requires maintenance works. Mitigation is proposed that will discourage bats from using the structure for the duration of the works.

7.7.2 Area 2 The Wynhol Viaduct on the M5 between junctions 19 and 20 houses a lesser horseshoe colony. The Viaduct needs repair where a joint is leaking and the rubber insert needs replacing. A maternity roost (in 2004 146 adults and 74 juveniles) was recorded, together with 19 brown long-eared bats (these use the viaduct all year round). This is the fourth largest lesser horseshoe maternity colony in a 20km radius and it meets the criteria to be designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Improvement schemes (replacement of steps from the bearing shelf to the chambers, and replacement of parapets) are also proposed; mitigation for the maintenance and roost enhancement is proposed (Atkins 2005).

40

The A303 proposals at Stonehenge are still under discussion. Both vegetated and wire bridges have been suggested as mitigation. It is not yet known whether either will prove satisfactory mitigation, but given that a barbastelle commuting route in a cutting west of Winterbourne Stoke would be severed by the proposed route, a green or overbridge designed to take other terrestrial mammals was designed and proposed in the Environmental Statement (ES) as mitigation to reduce the impact of severance. Barbastelle flight is difficult to categorise, but it tends not to fly high. For this reason a solid bridge or underpass is likely to be more successful than a wire bridge. An underpass is not possible at this location because of topography, a green bridge may be considered too expensive by HA. A geotextile bridge would give the appearance to barbastelles of being solid, but is less expensive than a green bridge (Baker Shepherd Gillespie 2004). A drawing of this bridge design is attached at Appendix H.

7.7.3 Area 3 The canal bridge on the A34/A44 cross north of Oxford City contains a Daubenton’s roost in the bridge abutment. The bridge is in need of repair so bat boxes in the bridge will replace the Daubenton’s roost. Associated with this is a gain for bats in nearby Cassington Holt Bridge (national grid reference SP 460 105) where a purpose built roost will be constructed within the bridge.

7.7.4 Area 4 A green bridge has been constructed primarily for landscape/visual reasons at Lamberhurst Bypass, but nature conservation issues were key to getting the bridge accepted. The site was surveyed for bats in September 2001 by the local bat group, and common and soprano pipistrelles, Daubenton's, serotines, brown long-eared, Myotis spp. and noctule bats were recorded using the surroundings including Roughets Wood which was damaged in the course of the road works. It was considered essential by the bat surveyors that a green bridge went in for the bats. However, the information was not included in the ES. The HA website information on this scheme states "The land bridge at the southern end of the Bypass also provides a wildlife corridor, not only for terrestrial species but also for bats which navigate by following the line of trees and shrubs."

The Old Bettshanger Colliery Regeneration site (a South East England Development Association (SEEDA) scheme, near Deal, East Kent) involves bat mitigation. A mile long railway cutting already crossed by the A258 was culverted for a wildlife underpass, as part of development on both sides of the A258 in this vicinity. One side of the A258 has been developed into a business park, the other into a 200 acre country park. A 70m long, 2m diameter culvert was constructed for bats and badgers to cross under the road, linking two foraging areas. SEEDA is proposing to install data loggers within the culvert to assess its use by bats and badgers but nothing is in place yet. The culvert is also due to be grilled. Kent Bat Group undertook the original survey prior to development, identifying common and soprano pipistrelles, Daubenton's, Nattererer’s, whiskered and noctule bats. The bat report produced for the Environmental Statement has been requested and will be included when it arrives.

41

7.7.5 Area 6 Ballingdon Bridge over the River Stour (a local highways authority scheme) has been demolished and replaced with a new bridge. The new bridge was put in without lighting because Daubenton’s, serotine, noctule and pipistrelle bats used the old bridge as a commuting route.

7.7.6 Area 7 The Ashby de la Zouch bypass (a Leicestershire County Council scheme) included an overpass above a public footpath that was known (anecdotally by the bat group) to be used by commuting pipistrelles. An 18.5m long, 3.7m high, 7.6m wide underpass was constructed for pedestrians on the original line of the footpath (and the bat commuting route). The footpath had a hawthorn hedge on each side, and this has been retained either side of the underpass. Although this was not mitigation for bats, pipistrelles are reported (anecdotally) to still be using their old commuting route despite the bypass.

7.7.7 Area 10 • Proposed works at Wigan Flashes may affect general bat activity – further investigation is needed.

• Widening of the M60 may affect bat activity – further investigation is needed.

• Proposed works at Hollingworth bypass may affect bat activity – further investigation is needed.

7.7.8 Area 12 An improvement scheme is proposed on the A1 Bramham to Wetherby. Bat roosts and bat foraging/commuting area may be affected. Potential roosts have been identified (i.e. trees, bridges). Emergence, foraging and flight path surveys have been undertaken, including on the main river corridor. No known roosts have yet been identified. Felling of mature trees is involved, and mitigation will include at least three bat boxes to every mature tree lost. Detailed design will look to include advance planting of potential linear foraging routes. New ponds are proposed adjacent to linear features.

7.7.9 Area 13 A new route is proposed for the A590 High and Low Newton Bypass in Cumbria. Pre-construction survey is still in process. There are proposals for this work to start in 2006. Bat activity means that overbridges and underpasses may be required. It has been reported that initial surveys suggest a green bridge (rather than wire) may be appropriate for this route. Survey for baseline data to enable efficient post construction monitoring repeatable at sites has been highlighted as important for this site.

There is an existing roost in the M60 box culvert bridge, junction 15-16. A large colony of noctules was found to be using the bridge, gaining access where an expansion joint has corroded. Initial survey work is currently being undertaken. The bats may have to be excluded from the structure to enable bridge maintenance work to proceed.

42

• Proposed works at Parton to Lillyhall may affect bats – further investigation is needed.

• Proposed works at Temple Sowerby may affect bats – further investigation is needed.

• Proposed works at Mottram to Tintwistle may affect bats – further investigation is needed.

• Proposed works at Haydon Bridge may affect bats – further investigation is needed.

• Initial activity surveys were undertaken in 1994 for the proposed Lancaster Western Bypass route to identify foraging, roosting and commuting routes.

Wales 7.7.10 A465 Heads of Valley Dualling Section 1 This scheme is an on-line widening which is under construction. Mitigation to be installed and monitored during and after construction includes two wire bridges, guide fencing for use during construction period to replace hedges that have been removed, and extending or improving existing culverts and underpasses used by bats.

Compensatory measures include the creation of a bat feeding area on adjacent land, and the repair of the dilapidated roof of a nearby property housing a large lesser horseshoe bat roost associated with the nearby SAC site.

7.7.11 A465 Abergavenny to Hirwaun Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 A Technical Advisory Group comprising of a range of local experts and conservation groups has been set up to advise on survey strategy, design and mitigation in a potentially very complex situation with construction phases of the schemes being adjacent in time and geography.

7.7.12 A487 Porthmadog to Tremadog Improvement Design of scheme may include mitigation to enable lesser horseshoe bat from maternity roost next to proposed road, to cross the road and to provide replacement feeding habitat.

7.7.13 A470 Gelligemlyn Design of scheme may include mitigation to enable lesser horseshoe bat from roost next to proposed on line improvement, to cross the road and to provide replacement feeding habitat

7.7.14 A470 Maes yr Helmau Design of scheme may include mitigation to enable lesser horseshoe bat from maternity roost within 2km of the online improvement, to cross the road and to provide replacement feeding habitat.

43

7.7.15 A477 Nash Fingerpost to Bangerston Improvement Post-construction monitoring of extended culverts and bat guide fencing for lesser and greater horseshoe bats.

Republic of Ireland 7.7.16 Republic of Ireland A scheme in the Republic of Ireland involved construction of six temporary crossing points for lesser horseshoe bats three years ago as mitigation for a single carriageway road widening scheme (used by local and quarry traffic). The six crossovers are within a 200m stretch of road. Three of the crossover structures have since been lost. The crossovers are made of weed control fabric erected horizontally on trees or posts where necessary. Baseline data exists indicating the use of the area by bats before works. They are designed to be a temporary measure until trees mature and provide natural crossing points. They were put up at the request of the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government and were erected by Galway County Council. This design may not be acceptable in engineering terms for major road schemes, but if they are successful for bats then the design could be altered to provide a similar structure for bats, constructed in a more robust and permanent fashion.

44

8 Recommendations

8.1 Further research The review of relevant publications and existing highway schemes with mitigation for bats has provided some useful information but there are still considerable uncertainties as to the success of particular types of mitigation.

In order to increase our understanding and enable us to make better informed decisions on appropriate mitigation, further research is recommended as follows:

• Further research is needed to assess the extent to which lighting discourages light-shy species from using their habitat; data on light levels and bat responses need to be understood for species and habitats.

• Further research on existing wire bridges is needed before they can be put forward as successful mitigation for different bat species. Experimental investigations on wire bridges without the involvement of traffic would assist our knowledge without the risk of RTAs.

• Further research is needed to assess the dimensions of underpasses used by different bat species.

• Mitigation that has been implemented without any follow-up monitoring should be considered for survey and assessment of success.

• Share research objectives and findings with European highways authorities.

• Collate records of bat RTAs from UK bat hospitals, including environmental conditions at the site where they are found. Further investigation could be made into the relationship between bat casualties and the type of traffic present, e.g. height, speed, traffic flow. Consideration should be given to whether traffic calming could reduce bat casualties in roads that are already constructed.

8.2 Project considerations • Bat survey can take one year or longer because of seasonal behaviour. Ensure this time is

factored into the overall scheme.

• Appropriate survey prior to construction should provide baseline data against which mitigation success should be monitored and assessed.

45

• Where possible, proposals should avoid bat roosts, commuting and foraging areas, avoiding the need for costly mitigation.

• As a last resort, mitigation should only be carried when there is a high likelihood of success, otherwise impacts should be avoided, following the precautionary principle.

• Involve statutory nature conservation organisations during the process in order to satisfy their requirements and avoid objections.

8.3 Survey considerations • Survey should consider bat behaviour throughout the night. Not just following emergence.

• Survey should include all bat species, not just Annex II species.

• Daily weather fluctuations may influence bat activity.

• Repeat surveys may be necessary.

• Consider whether car based surveys an appropriate survey technique for informing assessments.

8.4 Mitigation considerations • Essential bat mitigation must fall within highway authority control to ensure its long-term

function. Consider negotiating with adjoining landowners to encourage entry into formal management agreements to enhance landscape benefits of mitigation.

• Mitigation may require management/maintenance; factor in costs.

• Design mitigation/post-construction management so that it can be adjusted if necessary.

• Wire bridges are not yet a proven successful mitigation tool.

• Variations on wire bridges acceptable to highway engineers should be investigated, e.g. wire mesh bridges, geotextile structures.

• Mitigation should be designed to benefit additional species if possible, e.g. red squirrels, dormice, badgers.

• Design road infrastructure, e.g. overhead signs and bridges, to coincide with mitigation requirements where possible.

46

8.5 Maintenance considerations • Mitigation, its function and maintenance requirements should be clearly indicated in operation

and maintenance manuals or similar to ensure that highway managers and manual operatives are aware and manage appropriately.

• Consider traffic calming in areas where bat traffic casualties are high.

• Mitigation needs to be monitored and reported for several years after completion; until success has been proven (this may involve making modifications if not initially successful).

• All reports on survey, mitigation and monitoring of highway schemes pertaining to bats should be entered/referenced onto a central data-base to make follow-up and monitoring possible and inform future mitigation.

47

9 References

Altringham J D (2003). British Bats. New Naturalist. Harper Collins, London

Bach L, Burkhardt P & Limpens H J G A (2004). Tunnels as a possilibity to connect bat habitats. Mammalia 68 (4): 411-420

Bat Conservation Trust (1997). Bat Boxes – instructions on making and siting boxes (out of print)

Bat Conservation Trust (1999). Whiskered Bat. Bat Conservation Trust, London

Bat Conservation Trust (2000). Bats and Trees; a guide to the management of trees. Bat Conservation Trust, London

Bat Conservation Trust (2003). Bat Crime - is the legislation protecting bats? RSPB/BCT

Bickmore Catherine Bickmore Associates (2003). Review of work carried out on trunk road network in Wales for bats. Transport Directorate Welsh Assembly Government & Countryside Council for Wales

Billington G E & Norman G M (1997). The Conservation of Bats in Bridges Project – a report on the survey and conservation of bat roosts in bridges in Cumbria. English Nature, Peterborough

Blake D, Hutson A M, Racey P A, Rydell J & Speakman J R (1994). Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in southern England. Journal of Zoology 234, 453-462

Brinkmann R, Bach L, Biedermann M, Dietz M, Dense C, Fiedler W, Fuhrmann M, Kiefer A, Limpens H, Niermann I, Schorcht W, Rahmel U, Reiter G, Simon M, Steck C & Zahn A (2003). Crossing Points for Bats – limiting damage in habitat fragmentation by transport projects. Position Paper of the Wildlife Crossing Points Working Party. Available on www.buero-brinkmann.de

Catto C M C, Hutson A M, Racey P A & Stephonson P J (1996). Foraging behaviour and habitat use of the serotine bat (Eptesicus serotinus) in southern England. Journal of Zoology, 238, 623-633

Davidson-Watts I & Jones G (in prep). Differences in foraging behaviour between Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) and Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Leach 1825)

48

Duverge P L & Jones G (1994). Greater horseshoe bats – activity, foraging behaviour and habitat use. British Wildlife 6: 69-77

English Nature (2003). Managing landscapes for the greater horseshoe bat. English Nature, Peterborough

English Nature (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough

Entwistle et al (1996). Habitat exploitation by a gleaning bat, Plecotus auritus. Philisophical transactions of the Royal society, London B, 351, 921-931

Entwistle A C, Harris S, Hutson A M, Racey P A, Walsh A, Gibson S D, Hepburn I & Johnston J (2001). Habitat management for bats. A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisers. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

Fuhrmann M & Kiefer A (1996). Protection for bats when planning new roads: results of a two year study into the habitats of larger bats (Myotis myotis). Fauna flora Rheinland-Pfalz. 133-144 Landau Greenaway F (2001). The Barbastelle in Britain. British Wildlife 12, 326-334 Highways Agency (1999). Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Bats. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 10, Section 4 Jones J (2000). Impact of Lighting on Bats. Available from Bat Conservation Trust

Limpens H J G A (2002 – 2005). Cursusmaterialen t.b.v. de cursus “‘vleermuizen en planologie”. Vereniging voor Zoogdierkunde en Zoogdierbescherming / Eco Consult & Project Management. 48 pp.

Limpens H J G A (2005). Vleermuizen enplanologie. Zoogdiervereniging VZZ / Eco Consult & Project Management. 68 pp

Limpens H.J.G.A., Twisk P & Veenbaas G (2005). Bats and road construction. Brochure about bats and the ways in which practical measures can be taken to observe the legal duty of care for bats in planning, constructing, reconstructing and managing roads. Published by the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute, Delft, the Netherlands and the Association for the Study and Conservation of Mammals, Arnhem, the Netherlands, 24 pages

Mitchell Jones A J (2004). Bat mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough

49

Parsons K N, James G, Davidson-Watts I & Greenaway F (2003). Swarming of bats at underground sites in Britain – implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 111 (1): pp63-70.

Ransome R D (1996). The management of feeding areas for greater horseshoe bats. Report 174, English Nature, Peterborough

Richardson P & Bat Conservation Trust (2000). Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999. Bat Conservation Trust, London

Russ J M & Montgomery W (2002). Habitat associations of bats in Northern Ireland; implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 108, 49-58

Rydell J & Racey P (1995). Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 67, 291-307

Schofield H W (1996). The ecology and conservation biology of Rhinolophus hipposideros, the lesser horseshoe bat. PhD thesis, Aberdeen University

Schofield H W & Morris C (2003). Ranging behaviour and habitat preference of female Bechstein’s bat, Myotis bechsteinii (Kuhl 1818) in summer. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, Ledbury

Shiel C (1999). Bridge usage by bats in County Leitrim and County Sligo. Heritage Council

Smith P G & Racey P A (2002). Habitat Management for Natterer’s Bat. People’s Trust for Endangered Species/Mammals Trust UK, London

Swift S M (2004). Bat boxes: survey of types available and their efficacy as alternative roosts, and further progress on the development of heated bat houses. Mammals Trust UK, Bat Conservation Trust, London

Vaughan N, Jones G & Harris S (1996). Effects of sewage effluent on the activity of bats (Chiroptera: Vespertillionidae) foraging along rivers. Biological Conservation 78, 337-343

Vaughan N (1997). The diets of British bats (Chiroptera). Mammal Review 27 (2), 77-94.

Vincent Wildlife Trust (2002). Barbastelle Bat. Vincent Wildlife Trust Ledbury

Walsh A L & Harris S (1996). Foraging habitat preferences of vespertillionid bats in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 508-518

50

Case Study References

The following unpublished references are related to case studies, and were obtained from the clients to undertake this review. Atkins (2005). Bats at Wynhol Viaducts. Atkins Consultants, Bristol Bailey (2004). Blackwater Valley Road: effect of mitigation measures on bats February 2004. Blackwater Valley Country Park Billington G (2001)a. A66 Stainburn & Great Clifton Bypass – mitigation assessment: Scale Beck Woodland Bat Report, July 2001. Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2001)b. A66 Stainburn & Great Clifton Bypass, Cumbria. Mitigation Assessment: Scale Beck Woodland Bat Report, September 2001. Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2001)c. A66 Stainburn & Great Clifton Bypass, Cumbria. Mitigation Assessment: Scale Beck Woodland Bat Report, October 2001. Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2003). A66 Stainburn & Great Clifton Bypass, Cumbria. Mitigation Assessment: Scale Beck Woodland Monitoring, August 2002/Julu 2003. Greena Ecological Consultancy Billington G (2003)a. A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllyfni, Bat Surveys, Interim Report April to December 2003. Greena Ecological Consultancy Capita (2004). Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass Environmental Audit May 2004. Capital Property Consultancy Cresswell Associates (2004). A477 Sageston to Redberth Improvement. Bat Activity Report 2003-2004. Cresswell Associates, Gloucestershire Sowler S (2004). Technical Note – Review of bat overbridges and ecoducts with specific reference to A303 Stonehenge road scheme and barbastelle bats. Baker Shepherd Gillespie, Derbyshire

51

10 Acknowledgements

Input from the following individuals and groups is gratefully acknowledged:

Armstrong, Gail Babtie Bach, Lothar Bailey, Steve Bekker, Hans Billington, Geoff Birmingham & Black Country Bat Group Borders Bat Group Bradley, Steve Briggs, Patty Brinkmann, Robert Brown, Maggie Clark, Jenny Clarke, Matt Cork County Bat Group Cornwall Bat Group Crombie, Sheena Crompton, Richard Dally, Anne Drewett, John Durham Bat Group E3 Partnership East Yorkshire Bat Group Evers, Lyndsey Five Rivers Bat Group Frissen, Denis Fure, Alison Goldsmith, John Graham, Angela Greater Manchester Bat Group Green, Richard Greenaway, Frank Gwynedd Bat Group Hadden, Ruth Halliwell, Liz Harris, Gordon Herts & Middx Bat Group Hinde, David Hutson, Tony Jones, Alison

Keeley, Brian Kent Bat Group Le Fevre, Ivan Lean, Dan Leicestershire & Rutland Bat Group Limpens, Herman Lincolnshire Bat Group Loch Lomond Bat Group Lochaber Bat Group Lucking, Helen Mainstone, Colleen Markham, Steve Marshall, Tony Martin, John Matthews, Jean Mitchell-Jones, Tony Norfolk Bat Group North Highland Bat Network North Yorkshire Bat Group Northumberland Bat Group Oxfordshire Bat Group Pembrokeshire Bat Group Racey, Paul Raynor, Rob Read, Mike Richardson, Phil Sangwine, Tony Skye Bat Group Smart, Graham Smith, Peter South Lancashire Bat Group Sowler, Sandie Staffordshire Bat Group Stebbings, Robert Suffolk Bat Group Van der Wijden, Ben West Yorkshire Bat Group Westmorland & Furness Bat Group Wilson, Stuart Wray, Stephanie Wyatt, Len

52

11 Appendices

Appendix A– Questionnaire to bat groups/consultants

Appendix B– Questionnaire to highways professionals

Appendix C – Questionnaire results

Appendix D – Additional comments from respondents

Appendix E – Species and habitats survey table

Appendix F – A66 Stainburn & Great Clifton Bypass wire bridge

Appendix G – Sirhowy Enterprise Way wire bridge gantry

Appendix H – A303 Stonehenge modified overbridge design

A Questionnaire to bat groups/consultants

LR App A Ques1.doc Page 1 of 3

Tony Sangwine SSR SAT Environmental Policy

Our ref: Your ref: To Bat Group Contacts and Bat Consultants via E-mail cc:

From:

2/15E Temple Quay House 2 The Square, Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6HA GTN: 1371 8494 10 June 2005

BEST PRACTICE IN ENHANCEMENT OF HIGHWAYS DESIGN FOR BATS Dear Colleagues The attached questionnaire has been designed by the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) and Halcrow Group Ltd, on behalf of the Highways Agency. We would be very grateful if you could respond to this questionnaire as the results will feed into work to establish current best practice and mitigation for bats in the construction, improvement and maintenance of highways. Even if you or your group have not been involved with bat work connected with highway proposals, your response is important to inform future conservation of bats where highways are concerned. All who respond will be listed in the report to the Highways Agency, but at no time will any response be attributed to any individual. However, we may contact you for further information if you agree to this. If you represent a bat group, please pass this questionnaire to the relevant member. Please return your questionnaire by 27th June at the latest; we anticipate that it should take about 10 minutes to complete. Regards Tony Sangwine Highways Agency

LR App A Ques1.doc Page 2 of 3

BEST PRACTICE IN ENHANCEMENT OF HIGHWAYS DESIGN FOR BATS Bat Worker (Groups and Consultants) Questionnaire Introduction Halcrow Group Ltd and the Bat Conservation Trust have been commissioned to undertake a research project entitled Best Practice in Enhancement of Highways Design for Bats. This commission is intended to “assist the Overseeing Organisations’ staff and consultants in environmental design of highway improvement schemes and management of the existing estate in relation to bats, to include consideration of both mitigation and enhancement opportunities”. The listed objectives of the commission are: • To identify sources and review relevant information from the UK and Europe, and

produce a summary of the findings. • To identify gaps in existing knowledge and propose further research to address this. • To carry out active research to establish how highways impact on bat populations, to

identify, and where appropriate monitor, structures used by bats and to assess the effectiveness of current mitigation techniques.

• To update advice in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 10. Questionnaire Scope This questionnaire is intended to provide information for determining the range of existing mitigation measures that have been proposed and adopted, and to enable targeted monitoring of selected sites. Completing Questionnaires Please either email your completed questionnaire to Alison Rasey [ARasey@bats.org.uk] or send it Freepost to Alison at:

Bat Conservation Trust, FREEPOST LON 10138, London, SW8 4BR

We would be pleased to receive any additional information/detail that is relevant but not specifically requested in the questionnaire, either via email or Freepost as appropriate. Please send completed questionnaires (and any additional information) by 27th June, but if in the meantime you have any questions, do telephone Colin Catto on 0845 1300 228. We look forward to hearing from you.

LR App A Ques1.doc Page 3 of 3

BEST PRACTICE IN ENHANCEMENT OF HIGHWAYS DESIGN FOR BATS Name/Group: Contact No, E-mail or Address: Geographic Area Covered: 1) Have you undertaken baseline survey work or advised on mitigation design

connected with highways (eg new build, improvement works or maintenance activities), any time in the last 10 years? This can include work undertaken for the Highways Agency, local authorities, or their respective agents/consultants/ contractors. No (go to question 2) Yes (go to question 3)

2) The Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, Volume 10, Section 4, Part 3 Nature

Conservation provides specific advice in relation to bats. Given this, why do you think you have not been involved in undertaking surveys or providing design advice? a) Do not undertake this type of work b) Not aware of any highway works that have affected bats in geographic area covered c) Aware of highway works likely to affect bats in geographic area covered, however not consulted or involved in this work (please provide specific examples here) d) Other (please explain here)

If you have answered NO to question 1, and have answered question 2, you have completed this questionnaire. Please return it as described above. 3) Please provide an indication of the range of work you have undertaken with regard to

highways (check all that apply): a) Baseline surveys i) walkover surveys to identify potential roost sites and potentially valuable habitat ii) surveys to identify use/value of potential roost sites iii) surveys to confirm foraging routes/habitat value b) Mitigation design (that has been implemented) i) Feeding perches ii) Artificial roosts in bridges iii) Replacement hibernation sites iv) Replacement maternity sites v) Bat bridges, culverts or underpasses vi) Specific habitat creation/enhancement vii) Specific fencing provisions viii) Specific changes to lighting provisions c) Post-project implementation monitoring (please specify mitigation type and scheme(s))

4) Are you aware of any examples of where mitigation measures have been

unsuccessful and/or may have required adaptation? (please specify)

B Questionnaire to highways professionals

LR App B Ques 2.doc Page 1 of 3

Tony Sangwine SSR SAT Environmental Policy

Our ref: Your ref: Mima Garland, Antonia Glyde, David Leech, Bob Moorhouse Highways Agency via E-mail cc:

From:

2/15E Temple Quay House 2 The Square, Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6HA GTN: 1371 8494 10 June 2005

BEST PRACTICE IN ENHANCEMENT OF HIGHWAYS DESIGN FOR BATS Dear Colleagues Could I ask you to take a few minutes to pass on the attached questionnaire to the Regional Environmental Advisors. This has been developed as part of one of my research commissions and should take no more than 15 minutes to review and complete. As such could I ask you to encourage your REAs to complete and return this questionnaire by Monday 27th June to arasey@bats.org.uk. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact either myself, or Colin Catto (Bat Conservation Trust) who can be contacted on 0845 1300 228. Regards Tony Sangwine

LR App B Ques 2.doc Page 2 of 3

BEST PRACTICE IN ENHANCEMENT OF HIGHWAYS DESIGN FOR BATS Regional Environmental Advisor Questionnaire Introduction Halcrow Group Ltd and the Bat Conservation Trust have been commissioned to undertake a research project entitled Best Practice in Enhancement of Highways Design for Bats. This commission is intended to “assist the Overseeing Organisations’ staff and consultants in environmental design of highway improvement schemes and management of the existing estate in relation to bats, to include consideration of both mitigation and enhancement opportunities”. The listed objectives of the commission are: • To identify sources and review relevant information from the UK and Europe, and

produce a summary of the findings. • To identify gaps in existing knowledge and propose further research to address this. • To carry out active research to establish how highways impact on bat populations, to

identify, and where appropriate monitor, structures used by bats and to assess the effectiveness of current mitigation techniques.

• To update advice in DMRB Volume 10. Questionnaire Scope This questionnaire is intended to address the third of the listed objectives, in order to provide the information for determining the range of existing mitigation measures that have been adopted and to enable targeted monitoring of selected sites this August. Consultation exercises are also being undertaken with specialist consultants and local bat groups. Future Resource Requirements It is not anticipated at this stage that you will be required to provide any further support to this commission, however there may be a requirement for some administrative assistance in tracking down copies of relevant reports. We may therefore need to contact you for further information. Completing Questionnaires Completed questionnaires may be E-mailed to Alison Rasey [ARasey@bats.org.uk] by 27th June 2005.

LR App B Ques 2.doc Page 3 of 3

BEST PRACTICE IN ENHANCEMENT OF HIGHWAYS DESIGN FOR BATS Name (optional): Please select from the following list Responsible for: 1) Are you aware of any Improvement works (including TPI schemes or LNMS) that

have considered development of mitigation for bats? (please check one of the following boxes No Yes

2) Are you aware of any Maintenance works that have considered development of

mitigation for bats? (please check one of the following boxes) No Yes

3) If mitigation measures have not been undertaken, how have the requirements of “DMRB Volume 10, Section 4, Part 3 Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Bats” been addressed? Please provide full details.

4) What type of mitigation measures are you aware have been adopted? (please check

the relevant boxes and provide names of “as-built” schemes) a. Provision of feeding perches Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 b. Construction of artificial roosts in bridges Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 c. Provision of replacement hibernation sites Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 d. Provision of replacement maternity sites Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 e. Construction of bat bridges, culverts or underpasses Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 f. Specific habitat creation/enhancement Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 g. Specific fencing provisions Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 h. Specific changes to lighting provisions Example 1 Example 2 Example 3

5) Please indicate which of the following reports can be made available from the above examples with regard to baseline conditions, mitigation proposals or any monitoring activities. Please write this in the box next to the report, eg “4c, example 1, 2 or 3” Stage 3 Reports Environmental Statement Volume 2 Reports WLF 3 Licence applications in respect of bat species Licence application Method Statements WLF 3A Licence Return: Bats Post-development Monitoring Reports

6) Are you aware of any examples of where mitigation measures have been

unsuccessful and may have required adaptation? (please specify)

C Bat groups/consultants questionnaire results

C.1 Summary of questionnaire responses (please also refer to Chapter 4 and Appendix A)

The pie-charts overleaf represent the responses given by bat groups and consultants (i.e. 45 in total with 35 from bat groups and 10 from UK only consultants):

Consultee response when asked whether they have undertaken baseline survey work or advised on mitigation design connected with highways any time in the last 10 years

Yes71%

No29%

Consultees that have not undertaken bat surveys or designed and implemented mitigation were asked why they think that they have not been involved in undertaking bat surveys or providing design advice

Do not undertake this work69%

Not aware of any works23%

Aware of work but not consulted8%

The following results are based upon the 32 questionnaires completed by bat groups and UK only consultants who have undertaken bat surveys and / or have designed and implemented mitigation:

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have undertaken walkover surveys to identify potential bat roost sites & potentially valuable habitat.

Yes87%

No13%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have undertaken surveys to identify use/value of potential bat roost sites

Yes91%

No 9%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have undertaken surveys to confirm bat foraging routes/habitat value

Yes69%

No 31%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation in the form of artifcial feeding perches

No 91%

Yes9%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation in the form of artificial roosts in bridges

Yes53%

No 47%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation by replacement artificial hibernation sites

Yes28%

No 72%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation by replacing maternity roosts

No 94%

Yes6%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation in the form of bat bridges, culverts, or underpasses

No 50%

Yes50%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation in the form of specific habitat creation or enhancement

Yes50%

No 50%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation by providing specific fencing

Yes28%

No 72%

Consultee response when asked to indicate whether they have designed and implemented mitigation by providing specific lighting

Yes44%

No 56%

Consultee response when asked whether they have undertaken post-project monitoring of implemented mitigation

Yes31%

No 69%

Consultee response when asked whether they are aware of any examples of unsuccessful or adapted mitigation

Yes58%

No 42%

D Additional comments from respondents

D.1 Summary of comments made by consultants/bat groups (from questionnaire returns and telephone interviews)

D.1.1 Comments from UK bat experts/bat groups

1. General comment: Some highways authorities do not make ‘gain’ provision for bats if none are found, in order to prevent issues in future management.

2. General comment: investigation needs to be made into the general standard of bat survey reports and whether bat issues they raised were appropriately included within the ES for roads.

3. General comment: UV filters on lights are not effective mitigation for bats.

4. General comment: although consultants undertake the original survey, they are not automatically contracted to continue with the project; the mitigation work is often undertaken by other (plant) contractors. Who monitors the site, and who ensures it is monitored? The original surveyor is not usually asked to undertake this.

5. General comment: as a frequent sub-contractor to larger environmental/civil engineering companies, there is often no means for sub-contractors to assess effectiveness of advice – or even to see if it has been carried out – and/or that monitoring has been undertaken. It would be interesting to know if other bat consultants have been used only for survey and recommendations with no further follow up.

6. General comment: about ten years ago, at the extension of the M1 round Leeds to link with the A1, mitigation for general ecological interest was in the ES and offered at public inquiry. This was removed before the scheme was constructed.

7. Best mitigation often seems to be avoiding roost sites or getting trees felled with care. Competitive tender against a poor specification for work often results in the lowest common denominator for survey quality with (inadequate) survey being undertaken by junior staff (with little bat expertise). The system does not seem to be set up to anticipate and cover the costs of very thorough survey and assessment work.

8. General comment: design of (bat) crossings is important, as is lighting.

We started providing advice to correct the bat section of the DMRB Volume 10 but it was too large a task to fit in with our work. However, it needs to be done!

9. General comment: I am generally unimpressed with work/survey that has been done locally by consultants who lack much in the way of knowledge or expertise . . . a more co-operative approach is needed. In the past too many worthwhile suggestions from voluntary experienced workers have been brushed aside in favour of poor or factually incorrect suggestions from paid consultants. In truth, there are more examples of mitigation failure than success!

10. General comment: There is a tendency for personnel involved with highway schemes to be concerned about barbastelles, lesser and greater horseshoe bats only. Also, survey seems to be concentrated on bridge structures, and insufficient resources are put towards surveying other structures and areas that are important to bats.

11. General comment: X road scheme did not the take bats into account, yet it is going ahead.

12. General comment: When some roads were ‘detrunked’ the data collated from M25 surveys were not passed on to Transport for London especially relating to roosts. Having worked with TfL last year, I found that TfL had received no information from the Area Office on protected species. Also, when X Consulting took over a contract from Y Consultants, again none of the data was transferred.

Q4: I am not aware of examples where mitigation was unsuccessful or required adaptation because I am never involved in any follow-up (eg road widening at A1023); most recommendations seemed to be ignored.

13. Q2c: even if we were consulted we probably don’t have time to have much input, but it would be nice to be consulted.

14. Q2d: we have not been consulted!

15. Q4: as I am often subcontracted, I have no knowledge of the final success of mitigation.

16. Q4: we are not aware of examples where mitigation was unsuccessful or required adaptation, but we are not aware of any success. All our involvement has been for ‘gain’; we have not been involved with any loss of habitat, roosts, hibernacula or flight paths. This gets sorted at the planning stage. We have never come across ‘anti-bat’ attitudes when negotiating gain, but we encourage a low-tech approach.

17. Q4: I am not aware of examples in relation to a highway project. However, a bat ecology building in Bodmin as part of a business park development is being monitored twice annually; it is not used by bats as the original roost is still extant.

D.2.1 Comments from bat experts outside the UK

1. General comment: unfortunately there hasn’t been much follow-up of mitigation undertaken. A major complaint as we have recently discovered several schemes that were to include major mitigation for bats as well as other wildlife and it was patently ignored during construction.

2. General comment: I am involved with the European Handbook Habitat Fragmentation due to Infrastructure (COST 341). Via that network I co-operate with many people in Europe about habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure. As Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute, we co-operate with the Dutch Mammal Society (Herman Limpens) to produce a report/brochure (Bats and Road Construction).

3. Q3c: all projects in which we co-operated are still in the planning phase (all mitigation designs mentioned in question 3b were advised, but not yet implemented, as awareness of bat conservation in infrastructure projects is very recent (2003) – yet growing – in Belgium and no projects with mitigation measures have yet been realised).

4. Q3c: I have been involved with post-project implementation monitoring of green bridges (not built specifically for bats).

Q4: unsuccessful mitigation has included green bridges leading to forests that are too small, inadequate fencing along motorways, and underpasses that are too small at 1.5m high by 1m wide for Myotis myotis, and/or in the wrong place.

5. Q4: I am aware only of replacement of maternity sites that were unsuccessful; however, this was not mitigation connected with highway works.

6. Q4: I am not aware of mitigation that has been unsuccessful/needed adaptation, but it probably has happened in the southern district involving the Highway A73; post project monitoring has not yet been undertaken.

E Species and habitats survey table

Habitat Woodland Scrub Parkland Individual Recently Grassland Tall herb and fern Heath Mire Swamp Wetland Coastland Habitat Notestrees felled Bracken

Species Broadleaved Coniferous Mixed Dense/continuous Scattered Coniferous Mixed woodland Continuous Scattered Intertidal Saltmarsh Sand dune Cliff and slope Species

Common pipistrelle 2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 2 All year

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept Common pipistrelle Mating activity apparent in

Aug-Sept Lure (Apr-Sept)

Soprano pipistrelle 2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 2 All year

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept Soprano pipistrelle Mating activity apparent in

Aug-Sept Lure (Apr-Sept)

Nathusius' pipistrelle 3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 2 All year

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept Nathusius' pipistrelle Mating activity apparent in

Aug-Sept Lure (Apr-Sept)

Brown long-eared 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year 2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept Brown long-eared Mating activity apparent in

April as well as Aug-Sept

Grey long-eared 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year 4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept Grey long-eared Mating activity apparent in

April as well as Aug-Oct

Noctule 2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept Noctule Lekking behaviour in Aug-Oct

Leisler's 2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

1 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept Leisler's Lekking behaviour in Aug-Sept

Serotine 2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 2 All year

2 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

1 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept Serotine Mating activity apparent in

April as well as Aug-Sept

Daubenton's 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept Daubenton's Mating activity apparent in

Aug-Sept

Natterer's 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year 2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept Natterer's Mating activity apparent in

Aug-Sept Swarming (Sept-Nov)

Whiskered 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year Whiskered Mating activity apparent in

July-Aug

Brandt's 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept 4 All year Brandt's Mating activity apparent in

July-Aug

Bechstein's 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept 4 All year Bechstein's Lure (June-July) Swarming

(Aug-Oct)

Barbastelle 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept 4 All year Barbastelle Lure (July-Aug) Swarming

(Aug-Sept)

Greater horseshoe 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept Greater horseshoe

Lesser horseshoe 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

3 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug)

Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept Lesser horseshoe Mating activity apparent in

April as well as Aug-Oct

Method Detector/harp/netting/lures/radio-telemetry Detector/trapping/lures/telemetry Detector/trapping/lures/telemetry Fibrescope/binoculars Detector Detector Detector/trapping Detector Detector Detector Detector Method

Key:Annex II species

Winter survey to locate/assess hibernation sites

Continued overleaf…Spring/Summer/Autumn survey to confirm mating/lekking sites and foraging areas 4

Summer/Winter survey to locate maternity, transitional and hibernation roosting sites Survey season with optimum months in bracketsMar (Apr-Sept) Oct

All season survey to locate/determine roost use

Number of survey rounds per season required to confirm species presence and activity

Detector Detector

Standing water

Running water

Open waterBroad-leaved

Habitat Exposed rock and bare ground Cultivated Boundaries Structures Bat & bird Habitat Notes Natural Artificial land Treeline/fence/ Barn/ Overground Underground boxes

Species Cliff Cave Quarry Mine Refuse-tip hedgerow Wall Ditch House Grotto Folly Aquaduct Culvert Bridge Castle Cellar Tunnel Mine Ice-house Species

Common pipistrelle 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 Within light zone (Apr-Sept)

4 Within light zone (Apr-

Sept)

4 Within light zone (Apr-

Sept)

4 Within light zone (Apr-

Sept)

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Common pipistrelle Mating activity apparent in Aug-

Sept Lure (Apr-Sept)

Soprano pipistrelle 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 Within light zone (Apr-Sept)

4 Within light zone (Apr-

Sept)

4 Within light zone (Apr-

Sept)

4 Within light zone (Apr-

Sept)

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Soprano pipistrelle Mating activity apparent in Aug-

Sept Lure (Apr-Sept)

Nathusius' pipistrelle 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 2 All year (Feb & Aug) Nathusius' pipistrelle Mating activity apparent in Aug-

Sept Lure (Apr-Sept)

Brown long-eared 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Brown long-eared Mating activity apparent in April

as well as Aug-Sept

Grey long-eared 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Grey long-eared Mating activity apparent in April

as well as Aug-Oct

Noctule2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Noctule Lekking behaviour in Aug-Oct

Leisler's2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 2 All year (Feb & Aug) Leisler's Lekking behaviour in Aug-Sept

Serotine2 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

2 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) Serotine Mating activity apparent in April

as well as Aug-Sept

Daubenton's 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar Daubenton's Mating activity apparent in Aug-

Sept

Natterer's 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Natterer's Mating activity apparent in Aug-

Sept Swarming (Sept-Nov)

Whiskered 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Whiskered Mating activity apparent in July-

Aug

Brandt's 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

(Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Brandt's Mating activity apparent in July-

Aug

Bechstein's 4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

2 All year (Feb & Aug) Bechstein's Lure (June-July) Swarming (Aug-

Oct)

Barbastelle 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept)

4 All year (Apr-Sept)

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar Barbastelle Lure (July-Aug) Swarming (Aug-

Sept)

Greater horseshoe 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept)

4 All year (Apr-Sept)

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

Greater horseshoe

Lesser horseshoe 4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-Aug) Sept

4 Oct (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 Mar (June-

Aug) Sept

4 All year (Apr-Sept)

4 All year (Apr-Sept)

4 All year (Apr-Sept) 4 All year 4 All year 4 All year

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

4 Apr (May-Sept) Oct Nov (Jan-Feb) Mar

Lesser horseshoe Mating activity apparent in April as well as Aug-Oct

Method Detector Torch Detector Torch Detector Detector Detector Detector/Torch/Fibrescope/Trapping Torch Visual Method

Key:Annex II species

Winter survey to locate/assess hibernation sites

Spring/Summer/Autumn survey to confirm mating/lekking sites and foraging areas 4

Summer/Winter survey to locate maternity, transitional and hibernation roosting sites Survey season with optimum months in brackets

All season survey to locate/determine roost use

Number of survey rounds per season required to confirm species presence and activity

Mar (Apr-Sept) Oct

F A66 Stainburn & Great Clifton Bypass wire bridge

F.1 Photo

G Sirhowy Enterprise Way wire bridge gantry

G.1 Photo

Copyright Richard Green

H A303 Stonehenge modified overbridge design

Hammock Bridge Proposed Design

Bat Over Bridge Review

bakershepherdgillespie

ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS

CChheecckkeedd

AApppprroovveedd DDwwgg NNoo

SS

SS Figure 1DDaattee Nov 2004

DDrraawwnn FMC

IInn SSeeccttiioonn BBBB

IInn PPllaann

CCrroossss SSeeccttiioonn AAAA

© Baker Shepherd Gillespie 2004