northern long eared bat habitat assessment · is more open, creating some open flyways and forage...

Northern Long Eared Bat Habitat Assessment

Project Site: Sampson’s Mill Road, Cotuit MA

Prepared For: Borrego Solar, Inc.

Prepared by: Steven Riberdy, MS, CWB®, PWS, CE

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Survey Date: 10/06/16

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess the potential habitat conditions at the above referenced site for

the State and Federally protected Northern Long‐Eared Bat – Myotis septentrionalis (NLEB). The study

site, under consideration by Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. as a potential solar generation facility, may

require tree removal. The parcel is located within the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) NLEB buffer

zone. Projects within this zone that require a Federal or State permits (e.g., Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan, Section 404 permit) must perform a due diligence review for NLEB under Section 7 of

the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) following the final 4(d) rule issued in February, 2016. Due

diligence includes determining if any known hibernacula or maternity roost trees have been

documented on or proximal to the property where the proposed work will occur. In addition, under

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, the Federal agency initiating the Section 7 review (US ACOE‐404 program,

US EPA‐SWPPP), may reject the generic Biological Opinion (BO) established under the 4(d) rule and

require further investigation of a site, for the purpose of furthering the conservation of this species, if

the agency determines that NLEB, or its habitat, may be impacted. If the NLEB is found to be likely

present, the agency may require additional surveys in the form of acoustic monitoring, mist netting or

radio telemetry. Therefore, at your request, we have conducted the required due diligence review of

the entire parcel per the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR Part 17), as well as performed a full Phase I NLEB site

assessment of the area of proposed impact and areas proximal to the proposed impact at the above

referenced site. The purpose of this additional on‐site due diligence review was to:

further document any potential for NLEB habitat affected by the proposed project, and

describe the relative quality of any NLEB habitats found and describe the potential for NLEB to

occur within the impact area.

Based upon this review, it is GZA’s professional opinion that the potential project site located off of

Sampson’s Mill Road in Cotuit, MA is unlikely to have the potential for NLEB hibernacula or maternity

roosting tree habitat onsite and none are known within ¼ mile of the parcel. Forage potential, or

October 17, 2016 NLEB Assessment

Sampson’s Mill Road, Cotuit, MA Page | 2

Proactive by Design

general summer habitat, is likely present. The following is a summary of this due diligence review and

on‐site documentation for your records.

DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW

Per the Final 4(d) rule, we performed a due diligence records review of known NLEB overwintering sites

and maternity roost trees on, or proximal to, your project site. This review accessed the US FWS ‐ IPaC

web site to check for records as well as the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species

Program (MA NHESP) database. The IPaC request identified that the site is located in potential NLEB

habitat. Therefore, a full Phase I assessment was conducted to determine the likelihood of the site

providing actual NLEB habitat and, if such habitat was found present, to further assess the quality of

the habitat features and functions relative to NLEB. The MA NHESP database search (conducted on

October 05, 2016, data last updated on May 24, 2016) found none of these habitat features on, or

proximal to, the property where the proposed project will occur. Maternity roost trees were considered

proximal if they were located within 150 feet of the property boundaries as shown on the provided plans.

Winter hibernacula were considered proximal if they were located on site or within ¼ mile of the parcel

boundaries as provided to our office.

PHASE I ONSITE NLEB HABITAT ASSESSMENT

In addition to the required due diligence review, GZA also conducted a full Phase I habitat assessment

of the work area on site to characterize the habitats and assess the potential these habitats provide for

NLEB.

Study Methodology

The NLEB habitat assessment was conducted by Mr. Steven Riberdy, M.S. Senior Ecologist, CWB. The

survey included walking all areas of the proposed cutting as well as areas immediately adjacent areas.

A natural community map of all habitats found was then created based upon field observations. Each

natural community unit was assessed for the potential to support NLEB summer roosting and foraging

habitat. Within each natural community unit, dominant and common vegetation assemblages were

identified by stratum. Within the tree stratum, average dbh, canopy cover, and species composition

were assessed. Particular attention was paid to standing dead trees, high snag density, clutter density,

or other trees that may provide roosting locations. Standing dead trees were assessed relative to their

size, size relative to other trees, location, distribution and degree of decay. Notes on structural diversity

and complexity of each natural community unit as well as other habitat features associated with NLEB

(corridors, water sources, etc.) were made to better inform this qualitative bat habitat assessment. The

cutting area was assigned a value as to whether it provided no, very limited, limited, good or optimal

habitat to the NLEB with respect to both forage and roosting habitat.



Proactive by Design

Habitat Assessment

The study area is a 29± acre area located

on the north and south sides of

Sampson’s Mill Road, in Cotuit, MA. The

majority of the site is comprised of

forested upland habitat and part of a

larger, 400 acre, habitat block

maintained by the town as watershed

protection land. The site is bordered by

Mariner Circle to the north, Main Street

to the west and extensive forested areas

to the east and south. Within the site,

short, dense tree canopy covers the

entire are of potential development.

A single natural community type

dominates the site, which for descriptive

purposes has been split into two study

areas.

Site A (Forested Upland), North Side

of Sampson’s Mill Road, (17± ac), and

Site B (Forested Upland), South Side of Sampson’s Mill Road, (12± ac).

Site A: This area is located along the north side of Sampson’s Mill Road and is a roughly 1,500 foot long

by 500 foot wide area comprised of a uniform forested upland community. This area is forested with a

mixture of coniferous and deciduous species with white pine, red oak, white oak, black oak and red

maple comprising 90% of the canopy. There is a good mix of white pine (40%) and deciduous tree

species (60%) which comprise the canopy other common canopy tree species include pitch pine,

sassafras and black birch. Overall, the canopy is short (50‐70’) with the white pine comprising almost all

of the trees >60’ in height. For the most part this forested community young, with most trees (60%)

being 3‐8” dbh, and a smaller percentage (30%) in the 8‐15” dbh class, most of which are white pine.

Very few (>10%) of the canopy trees are greater than 15” dbh, and again are mostly larger white pines.

The understory and sub‐canopy are both very dense, and create a complex and cluttered understory.

Canopy tree regeneration as well as lower branching in the short deciduous tree canopy make up the

sub‐canopy layer while tree regeneration, highbush blueberry, arrowwood, shadbush, mountain laurel



Proactive by Design

and maple leaf viburnum make up the shrub layer. The groundcover is moderate to dense with a carpet

of lowbush blueberry, green brier, huckleberry and poison ivy present throughout most of the forested

area. Other common groundcover species includes wintergreen, bracken fern, sheep laurel,

sarsaparilla, hayscented fern, lady slipper and Pennsylvania sedge.

There are no water sources (open water) or wetland areas located within or proximal to the study area.

Some open water is present west of the site in the form of a small kettle pond, which is located >1,000

feet from the study area. There are also limited trails or corridors within the study area for internal

NLEB movement. Standing dead trees are few in number, with <1% of all standing dead tree boles dead.

In total only five standing dead tree boles were found, most in the 8‐12” age class. Two of these had

exfoliating bark that could be used for NLEB roosting, while the other three were devoid of bark and

limbs. Of the live trees, only a low percent (<1%) of these had head limbs or exfoliating bark useful for

NLEB roosting.

Site B: This area is located on the south side of Sampson’s Mill Road, south of a wide powerline

easement that bisects the forested watershed protection parcel. This area is also completely forested

upland habitat and in general very similar in vegetative composition to Site A. The difference here is

that the overall assemblage of trees has less white pine (20%), with the deciduous trees of a similar

composition as Site A. The canopy trees here are smaller (70%; 3‐8” dbh) with a shorter canopy (40‐

60’). The understory and shrub layers are also very dense and cluttered, similar to Site A. The shrub layer

is more open, creating some open flyways and forage areas beneath the sub‐canopy. Groundcover is

near identical to Site A, with a carpet of lowbush blueberry present throughout the upland areas.

Again similar to Site A, this area has no open water or wetlands located within the site. The cluttered

site has few trails or flight corridors within. However, the open sub‐canopy is more conducive to forage

and gleaning habits of the NLEB than Site A. Standing dead trees are fewer in number than Site A,

mainly due to the lack of larger trees and overall young age of the forest. Standing dead tree boles make

up less than 1% of the overall site and only three were found that contain exfoliating bark. These were

all <10” dbh trees. Of the live trees, only a small percentage (<1%) had features conducive to NLEB

roosting.



Proactive by Design

Findings

Summer Habitat: For this assessment, we have rated all forested and edges habitat areas as to their

degree of forage and roosting potential for this species. Areas were classified as:

no habitat present;

“limited or very limited” habitat;

“good” habitat; or

“optimal” habitat.

On site, the vast majority of the site (Sites A and B) offer limited habitat value to the NLEB. These

forested areas likely provide some limited to good forage opportunities, also with a very limited

capacity to support roosting sites. If roosting were occurring on site, it is expected to be limited to

solitary roosting males as no sign of maternity roosting colony habitat were found.

Overwintering Habitat: Based upon our site inspection, there is no evidence of the presence of

overwintering habitat. The closest location of documented overwintering for this species is located

several miles away from the site. The local geology is not conducive to the formation of natural caves.

However, this in this part of the state recent studies have shown that hibernacula may be located in

other structures such as buildings, cistern, large culverts or wells. No such structures were found on site

nor were identified in our due‐diligence review.

Phase I NLEB Habitat Assessment and Due Diligence Review Summary: Overall, the proposed work

area does not provide important habitat for the NLEB. The forested portions of the site offer limited

habitat, limited to general forage opportunities found within the forested areas of the site, along with

very limited roosting habitat. The impact to forested habitat will be limited to a 29.0 acre area of the

site which is situated in a larger 400 acre protected habitat block. Therefore, there would appear to be

no limitations to site development relative to the potential presence of NLEB. It is not expected that the

potential presence of NLEB onsite would warrant a more advanced acoustic or mist‐net survey as site

use and NLEB density would be very low. The NLEB Habitat Criteria and potential presence on site are

summarized in the table below.



Proactive by Design

NLEB Habitat Criteria Present?

Sites A and B

Known hibernacula within ¼ mile of site No

Known maternity roost trees within 150’ of site No

Potential maternity roost trees on site No

Potential good to optimal forage habitat on site Yes

Potential good to optimal roosting habitat on site No

Potential for NLEB to be found on site for any part of their life cycle Low (forage only)

If you have any questions regarding this Report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your

convenience at 413‐726‐2100.

Sincerely,

GZA, Inc.

Steven Riberdy, PWS, CWB, PSS Paul G. Davis, PhD, PWS

Senior Ecologist Consultant Reviewer



Proactive by Design

Attachments Description of NLEB Habitat Characteristics

Site Habitat Photos

US FWS Phase I NLEB Habitat Assessment Forms

Limitations of Survey

Northern Long Eared Bat Habitat Overview

Northern Long Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Habitat

The basic summer and winter habitat characteristics of the Northern Long‐Eared Bat are described

below.

Roosting / Foraging Habitat (Summer Habitat): During spring and summer months (April‐August) NLEB’s

are usually found foraging and roosting in deciduous forested habitats. This species typically roosts in

clustered stands of large trees, especially in live or dead hardwoods with tall cavities. However, this

species has been found to roost in other trees, some as small as 3 inch dbh. In addition, human made

structures can sometimes be utilized. Summer roosting / forage habitat, while loosely defined as

“wooded habitats”, does have some particular micro‐habitat features that make a particular forested

area more or less conducive to the NLEB life history needs. Roost trees in forested areas tend to be

clustered in stands of large trees (>16” dbh, having more hardwood than softwood, more total dead

basal area, and larger average live tree diameter than other nearby forested areas (Sasse 1995, Broders

and Forbes, 2004). NLEB’s also tend to use older, intact forest interiors over more managed ones and

also tend to roost in higher elevations on sites (mid and upper slopes) as compared to low elevation

areas, therefore often favoring upland conditions. One important factor in several studies is the size

and type of tree. Trees with naturally exfoliating bark (e.g., shagbark hickory) provide natural roosting

locations (exfoliating bark) whether the tree is alive or dead, while most of the other species that this

species prefers (maple, ash, beech, oak) need to be standing dead to contain appropriate roosting

locations. The degree of decay of a standing dead tree as well as the overall amount of standing dead

and location proximal to one another is another important factor in determining the quality of potential

roosting habitat. Forest stands that are older or have a mixture of age classes often have more standing

deadwood, standing deadwood in various states of decay and potential to generate future standing

dead trees as older ones lose their bark and fall down thereby maintaining the roosting quality of a site.

NLEB’s tend to inhabit dead deciduous trees in mid‐stages of decay, where the tree still has exfoliating

bark but is still structurally sound. Groups of several large stands of dead trees provide ideal roosting

habitat. In general all forested areas contain some percent of standing dead (1‐2%), sites with a greater

percentage, (5%), with the standing dead trees present being clustered and of a size typically larger

than the average dbh of those in the surrounding forested areas are preferred over areas with sparse,

small, standing dead distributed relatively evenly throughout the forested habitats.

Canopy cover is another factor in determining roosting habitat quality, the degree to which is uncertain

and likely varies geographically (Whalen and Krusac, 2014). NLEB’s tend to prefer roost trees with lower

level of solar radiation, as compared to Indiana Bat, especially in areas with a more open canopy within

the surrounding forested habitat.

May 17, 2016 NLEB Overview

Page | 2

Proactive by Design

Summer “maternity colonies” tend to be in areas with more ideal roosting conditions such as larger

diameter trees, often in clusters, and a greater percentage of standing dead trees present. Female bats

tend to congregate into these maternity colonies, to raise their pups between May 15 and August 15.

They tend to select larger, dead trees with more open canopies to increase solar radiation, with selected

roost trees located in close proximity to other suitable roost trees. Females tend to periodically switch

roost trees during the summer. (O’Keefe, 2009). Male NLEB’s roost singly and can be found in more

marginal roosting habitats, often in damaged parts of live trees or in areas where dense clusters of good

habitat are not present.

NLEB’s forage within forested habitats, often near roosting sites and within more complex (cluttered)

and structurally diverse habitats, as the forage opportunities are greater in these habitats. NLEB’s

forage below the canopy but above shrub layer mainly gleaning insects off of leaf surfaces. Specific

habitat features that are particularly attractive to NLEB forage are vernal pools, small ponds, forest

edges, streams (protected by canopy closure), forest trails, and nearby clearings. In general, this species

forages within forested and edge habitat areas, often avoiding areas of open canopy. The diversity of

the habitat types within an area increase the prey base and thus the quality of NLEB forage habitat.

Forage and roosting habitat associated with areas that have high quality of one habitat attribute but

low to minimal quality of the other are not as useful to this species compared to an area that can

function in multiple capacities. As bats don’t tend to forage far from their roosting sites, having good

to moderate quality forage habitat nearby is critical in indicating high quality habitat for this species.

In general, the more complex the habitat, with a greater mix of large and small trees, with a relatively

high percentage of standing dead in various states of decay, provides more optimal habitat conditions.

In contrast, monotypic stands or younger trees, and stands with low percentages of standing dead

spread evenly over the area provide less ideal roosting habitats. Quality roosting locations combined

with habitat complexity creates overall ideal summer conditions for the NLEB.

Overwintering Habitat (Winter Habitat): NLEBs overwinter in caves and mines, and sometimes in similar

human structures such as bridges, train tunnels and hydroelectric dams. Within these hibernacula, bats

nest singly or in small groups often with other congeners. They hibernate in cracks and old drill holes

within these habitats. The key factor in overwintering habitat location is its ability to maintain a fairly

constant above freezing temperature and high humidity. The location of suitable overwintering

locations is a limiting factor in the landscape and likely affects the overall distribution of the bats across

the range. NLEB’s do travel from their overwintering location to their summer roosting grounds but

densities of NLEB’s tend to be highest in the forested habitats closer to overwintering sites. Near the

overwintering locations, is also where swarming after spring emergence and before fall return to the

hibernacula occurs; also the time when mating is most likely to occur.

SITE PHOTOS

Samson’s Mill Road, Site A on Left

Site A: Upland Forest

SITE PHOTOS



SITE PHOTOS

Site A: Typical Standing Dead

SITE PHOTOS

Site B: Upland Forest


SITE PHOTOS


Powerline north of Site B

SITE PHOTOS

Site B: Typical Snag

APPENDIX A PHASE I SUMMER HABITAT ASSESSMENTS

NOTHERN LONG EARRED BAT (NELB)

HABITAT ASSESSMENT SHEET Project Name: Sampsons Mill Road – Cotuit MA Date: 10/6/2016

Township/Range/Section: Cotuit (Barnstable), MA

Surveyor: S. Riberdy, CWB

Lat/Long/Zone: 70d 26’ 23.136” W / 41d 38’ 4.416” N

Brief Project Description Solar Farm, project located on forested watershed land. * See attached report

Project Area

Project

Total Acres Forest Acres Open Acres

29 ac 29 ac 0

Proposed Tree Removal (ac)

Completely Cleared

Partially Cleared (will leave trees)

Preserve acres –no clearing

29 ac 0 0

Vegetation cover types

Pre‐Project Post Project

100” forested watershed land (upland forest) * See attached report

‐ solar farm

Landscape within 5 mile radius

Flight Corridors to other forested areas?

Yes. Limited, powerline corridor passes through 400 acre forested watershed land, approx. 30 acres of the 400 proposed to be developed

Describe Adjacent Properties (e.g. forested, grassland, commercial or residential development, water sources)

400 acres of forested habitat in forested block. SF residential around forested area.

Proximity to Public Land

What is the distance (mi.) from the project area to forested public lands (e.g. national or state forests, national or state parks, conservation areas, wildlife management areas)?

Site is within 400 acres of public land


Use additional sheets to asses discrete habitat types at multiple sites in a project area.

Include a map depicting locations of sample sites if assessing discrete habitats at multiple sites in project area.

A single sheet can be used for multiple sites, if habitat is the same.

Sample Site description

Sample Site No. (s) A: North Site

Upland Forest (Mixed)

Water Resources at Sample Site

Stream Type (# and length)

Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Describe exiting condition of water sources:

NONE

Pools/Ponds (# and size)

Open and accessible to bats?

Wetlands (approx.)

Permanent Seasonal

Forest Resources at Sample Site

Closure/Density

Canopy (> 50’) Midstory (20‐50’) Understory (< 20 ‘) 1=1‐10%, 2=11‐20%, 3=21‐40%, 4=41‐60%,

5=61‐80%, 6=81‐100%

6 5 4

Dominant Species of Mature Trees

Red Oak, White Pine, White Oak

% of Trees w/ Exfoliating Bark <1% 0 0

Size Composition of Live Trees (%)

Small (3‐8 in) Med (9‐15 in) Large (> 15 in)

60% 30% <10%

No. of Suitable Snags 5

Standing dead trees with exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, or hollows. Snags without these characteristics are not considered suitable.

IS HABITAT SUITABLE FOR NELB? Yes ‐ Limited

Additional Comments:

High degree of clutter in midstory, young canopy, lack of large trees. Low‐Moderate Forage, Low Roosting, limited flight corridors and no water. See Attached Report

Attach aerial photo of project site with all forested areas labeled and a general description of the habitat.

Photographic Documentation: Habitat shots at edge and interior from multiple locations; understory/midstory/canopy, examples of

potential suitable snags and live trees; water sources.


Use additional sheets to asses discrete habitat types at multiple sites in a project area.

Include a map depicting locations of sample sites if assessing discrete habitats at multiple sites in project area.

A single sheet can be used for multiple sites, if habitat is the same.

Sample Site description

Sample Site No. (s) B: South Site

Upland Forest (Mixed)

Water Resources at Sample Site

Stream Type (# and length)

Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Describe exiting condition of water sources:

NONE

Pools/Ponds (# and size)

Open and accessible to bats?

Wetlands (approx.)

Permanent Seasonal

Forest Resources at Sample Site

Closure/Density

Canopy (> 50’) Midstory (20‐50’) Understory (< 20 ‘) 1=1‐10%, 2=11‐20%, 3=21‐40%, 4=41‐60%,

5=61‐80%, 6=81‐100%

6 5 3

Dominant Species of Mature Trees

Red Oak, White Pine, White Oak

% of Trees w/ Exfoliating Bark <1% 0 0

Size Composition of Live Trees (%)

Small (3‐8 in) Med (9‐15 in) Large (> 15 in)

70% 20% <10%

No. of Suitable Snags 3

Standing dead trees with exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, or hollows. Snags without these characteristics are not considered suitable.

IS HABITAT SUITABLE FOR NELB? Yes ‐ Limited

Additional Comments:

High degree of clutter in midstory, young canopy, lack of large trees. Low‐Moderate Forage, Low Roosting, limited flight corridors and no water. Fewer large trees than are A. See Attached Report

Attach aerial photo of project site with all forested areas labeled and a general description of the habitat.

Photographic Documentation: Habitat shots at edge and interior from multiple locations; understory/midstory/canopy, examples of

potential suitable snags and live trees; water sources.

Natural Resource Survey Limitations

1. GZA’s natural resource survey was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area, and GZA observed the degree of care and skill generally exercised by other consultants under similar circumstances and conditions. GZA’s findings and conclusions must be considered not as scientific certainties, but rather as our professional opinion concerning the significance of the limited data gathered during the course of the survey. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

2. The conclusions presented in the report were based solely upon the services described therein, and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of described services or the time and budgetary constraints imposed by Client. The work described in this report was carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of our contract for this project.

3. The purpose of this study was to assess the biological site conditions, subject to the terms and limitations of the contractual agreement as well as seasonally imposed conditions affecting the conditions and biological diversity present at the time of observation.

4. The observations described in this report were made on the dates referenced and under the conditions stated therein. Conditions observed and reported by GZA reflect the actual conditions that could be reasonably observed based upon the visual inspections of surface conditions at the specific time of observation. Such conditions are subject to environmental and circumstantial alteration beyond the control of GZA and may not reflect conditions observable at another time.

5. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the data obtained from a limited number of surveys performed on the site as described in the report. There may be variations between these surveys and other past or future surveys due to inherent environmental variability.

northern long eared bat habitat assessment · is more open, creating some open flyways and forage...

Documents