Limerick Smarter Travel Route 2. Bat Survey and Assessment !!! 19 th June Prepared on behalf of Punch Consulting Engineers

Transcription

1 Limerick Smarter Travel Route 2 Bat Survey and Assessment 19 th Prepared on behalf of Punch Consulting Engineers

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tait Business Centre, Dominic Street, Limerick City, Ireland. t , f e. w. 1 INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY DESK STUDY FIELD SURVEY Bat habitat survey Bat emergence and activity survey EVALUATION RESULTS DESK STUDY BAT HABITATS Bridges and Buildings Linear features BAT ACTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES PLATES APPENDIX 1 SYNOPSIS OF BATS IN IRELAND AND LEGISLATION APPENDIX 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE APPENDIX 3 SONOGRAMS OF BATS RECORDED DURING THE BATS SURVEYS

3 1 INTRODUCTION Ecofact Environmental Consultants Ltd. was commissioned by Punch Consulting Engineers to carry out a bat survey of the proposed Limerick Smarter Travel Route 2. The site is located on the north western outskirts of Limerick City adjacent to the River Shannon, between the University of Limerick Campus and Guinness Bridge (over the Park canal). The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 1. This report includes the results of all data collected, an evaluation of the likely ecological sensitivity and significance of the site and recommendations of additional actions. This report and field work elements were based on best practice and follows guidance in NPWS Bat Mitigation Guidelines for Ireland (2006). All bats, their roosts, and young have legal protection in Ireland. Appendix 1 gives a synopsis of bats and Irish legislation. 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Desk Study The website of the NBDC (National Biodiversity Data Centre), Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI) and NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) were accessed to find the bat species previously recorded in the study area. 2.2 Field Survey Bat habitat survey The habitats of the proposed development were assessed as to their importance to foraging and commuting bats, with regard to treeline / hedgerow composition and quality, connectivity with the surrounding treeline / hedgerow network. In assessing features for bats, the NPWS Wildlife Manual No. 25 Bat Mitigation Guidelines for Ireland by Kelliher and Marnell (2006) and National Roads Authority 'Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats Prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes' (NRA, 2005) were acknowledged. A daylight visual assessment was carried out on the 11 th to assess suitable bat roosting habitat in bridges and trees in the study area, where visual signs of activity and roosting were recorded. Potential roost sites in cavities, splits, cracks, knotholes and under loose bark were examined from the ground and aided by a step ladder to higher levels where access allowed. Close focusing binoculars were used to check the potential presence of bats at higher elevations from the ground. Some tree cavities and crevices in stonework of bridges were examined in detail using a video borescope. This piece of equipment is fitted with a camera and allows visibility of confined spaces and narrow passages potentially used by hibernating/roosting bats. A high powered torch was used to view crevices and other spaces potentially used by resting bats. Potential roosting sites such as thickets of ivy were also examined. Special attention was given to looking for bat droppings on flat or near flat surfaces in the vicinity of bridges. 3

4 Figure 1 Extent of the proposed Limerick Smarter Travel Route 2, showing bridge locations. 4

5 The bridge grading system established by Billington and Norman (1997) was utilised to rate the bridges in the study area as follows: 0 = no potential (no suitable crevices) 1 = crevices present may be of use to bats 2 = crevices ideal for bats but no evidence of usage 3 = evidence of bats (e.g. bat present, droppings etc.) Billington & Norman (1997) consider that any crevice greater that 100mm deep and sheltered from the elements should be regarded as a potential bat roost. There are no buildings on the proposed development site. There is an old mill building constructed of stone to the north of the proposed development. All accessible spaces that could potentially allow the entry of bats to this building were visually examined in detail for bats, signs of bats or evidence bat activity Bat emergence and activity survey Some bat roosts cannot be easily detected during daylight hours using the methodology in section so bat detector surveys were carried out on the 11 th and 15 th to establish if bats were roosting in trees and bridges within the proposed development site. These surveys commenced c.30 minutes prior to sunset and involved three Ecofact ecologists on each occasion (Gerard Hayes Senior ecologist, Shane O Toole Junior ecologist and Eoin Connolly Junior ecologist). On both of these evenings, emergence bat surveys were undertaken using visual observations and mobile bat detectors (Bat Box Duet Frequency Division/Heterodynes and Anabat SD1 CF Bat Detectors). The heterodyne detectors were tuned up and down in frequently between 25 khz khz as this frequency range is able to pick up the calls of all Irish bat species. Bat species were identified in real time in the field using the heterodyne detector and the results of the Anabat detector were identified subsequent to the survey on the Analook computer programme. The Anabat detector was an additional detector to ensure no bat calls were missed. This may occur when a Heterodyne detector is tuned to a frequency not suitable to detect a particular species of bat, e.g. a detector tuned to 45 khz to pick up a Pipistrelle bat may miss out on a Leisler s bat at 25 khz. On the 11 th detecting commenced at Bridge 4, 5 and 6 to assess if these bridges were being used by roosting bats. On the 15 th, detecting commenced at Bridge 1, the old Mill building and in the environs of the proposed site compound. After dusk, subsequent surveying was undertaken along the existing cycle / walk track. Bat activity within and in the environs of the site were recorded until on the mornings of the 12 th and 16 th to establish the importance of the site for bat foraging and commuting. The optimum time for dusk surveys at buildings, particularly during early summer is for the two hours after the first bats emerge as this will cover the emergence period as well as the first return to the roost for some species. No dawn surveys were undertaken. 2.3 Evaluation Ecological survey results were evaluated to determine the significance of identified features located in the study area on an importance scale ranging from international-national-county-local. The local scale is approximately equivalent to one 10 km square but can be operationally defined to reflect the character of the area of interest. Because most sites will fall within the local scale, this is sub-divided into three categories: high local importance - local importance - local value. The criteria used are shown in Appendix 2. 5

6 3 RESULTS 3.1 Desk study Three informative public bodies of information in relation to bats were accessed in advance of the field surveys: NBDC, NPWS, and BCI. Table 1 gives the bat species that have been previously recorded in the wider study area, these results a combination of NBDC, NPWS, and BCI sources. Bats that currently have their range in the area containing the proposed work area are the Annex II listed common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Daubenton s bat Myotis daubentonii, Brandt s bat Myotis brandtii, Natterer's bat Myotis nattereri, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus, whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus and Leisler's bat Nyctalus leisleri. There are records of the Annex II listed Lesser Horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros within 2km of the site. All Irish Bats are protected by the Bonn Convention 1992 (Agreement on the Conservation of Bats), the Bern Convention 1982, and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act The National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) maps landscape suitability for bats based on Lundy et al. (2011). The maps are a visualisation of the results of the analyses based on a habitat suitability index. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 being least favourable and 100 most favourable for bats. Table 1 gives the suitability of the study area for the bat species found in Ireland (based on NBDC) along with their Irish Red List Status (from Marnell et al, 2009). The study area is not located within a 'core area' as regards suitability for bats with the suitability index for all bats at Figure 2 illustrates the bat landscape suitability of the study area (from National Biodiversity Data Centre mapping). Table 1 Bat species that have been previously recorded in the wider study area (based on NBDC, NPWS, and BCI data). Irish Red list status is also indicated (based on Marnell et al, 2009). Suitability of the study area for the bat species found in Ireland (based on the NBDC data). Common name Scientific name Irish red list status Suitability index All bats Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Least Concern 56 Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Least Concern 16 Daubenton s bat Myotis daubentonii Least Concern 18 Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus Least Concern 42 Leisler s bat Nyctalus leisleri Near Threatened 43 Natterer s bat Myotis nattererii Least Concern 64 Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus Least Concern 30 Brandt s bat Myotis brandtii Least Concern 38 Lesser horseshoe bat* Rhinolophus hipposideros Least Concern 64 *We are aware of a roost / hibernacula for this species approximately 2km away from the study area. 6

7 Figure 2 Bat landscape suitability of the study area (from National Biodiversity Data Centre mapping). 7

8 3.2 Bat habitats Bridges and Buildings A total of seven bridges were assessed in relation to bat roosting potential using criteria in Billington, and Norman (1997). Table 2 and Figure 3 give the result of the bridge surveys using the bridge grading system established by Billington and Norman (1997). Some of the bridges in the study area likely to be used by roosting bats and any works to these structures will have to be carried out taking an ecologically sensitive approach using established bat mitigation measures. No roosts were recorded in any of the bridges but most have the potential to harbour resting bats. Table 2 Results of the bridge surveys using the bridge grading system established by Billington and Norman (1997). Bridge Bridge type / description Rating Bridge 1 Clear span bridge (concrete slabs) supported by stone walls with some crevices 1 Ivy potentially used by bats. Bridge 2 Bridge 3 Bridge 4 Bridge 5 Bridge 6 Constructed of a brick arch supported by stone walls with no crevices greater than 100mm deep. Damp underside. Dense ivy cover on bridge Clear span bridge (concrete slabs) supported by concrete walls with some crevices Constructed of a brick arch reinforced by structural steel, and supported by stone walls with crevices greater than 100mm deep. Generally damp underside. Some ivy cover on bridge Constructed of a brick arch and stone walls with one large crevice on the southern side. Remnant of construction material (corrugated iron) on the underside provides suitable roosting habitat. Dense ivy cover on bridge. Constructed of a brick arch and stone walls. Numerous minor crevices and one large crevice on the underside. Dense ivy cover on bridge walls. Generally dry on the underside. 0 for bridge Ivy potentially used by bats 1 3 for bridge Ivy potentially used by bats 3 Ivy potentially used by bats 3 Ivy potentially used by bats Bridge 7 Constructed of a brick arch and stone walls with structural steel and concrete slab reinforcement. Generally dry on the underside with dense ivy cover on the north west side of bridge wall. 1 Ivy potentially used by bats Bridge 1 is located approximately 230m to the east of the proposed development. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs supported by stone walls with some crevices in stone walls that may be of use to bats. This bridge was given a rating of 1 but has ivy cover potentially used by bats. Bridge 2 is located approximately 200m to the east of the proposed development. This bridge is bridge constructed of a brick arch supported by stone walls with crevices no greater than 100mm deep. The pointing between the stonework on this structure is intact and any crevices are shallow and unilkely to be used by roosting bats. This bridge structure was given a rating of 0 and but has ivy cover potentially used by bats. Bridge 3 is located approximately 150m to the north-east of the proposed development. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs supported by concrete walls with a single crevice that may be of use to bats. No signs of bats were recorded in this bridge however and it was given a rating of 1. Bridge 4 is located approximately 200m from the northern limit of the proposed development. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs supported by stone walls with some crevices in stone walls that may be of use to bats. Some crevives in this bridge were in excess of 20cm deep and were conisderd ideal for bats but no evidence of usage was recorded This bridge was given a rating of 1 though was generally damp on the underside. 8

9 Figure 3 Extent of the proposed limerick Smarter Travel Route 2 showing bridge ratings for bats based on Billington & Norman (1997) criteria. 9

10 Bridge 5 over the River Groody is located near the centre of the proposed development and is constructed of a brick arch and stone walls. Dense ivy cover on this bridge provides potential bat roosting habitat. A long crevice on the southern side of this bridge provides suitable bat roosting habitat In addition, a remnant of construction material (corrugated iron) on the underside of Bridge 5 provides suitable roosting habitat. The latter features could not be examined in detail for health and safety reasons. Bridge 5 was given a rating of 3. Bridge 6 is located at the southern extent of the proposed development. It is constructed of a brick arch and stone walls. This structure has numerous minor crevices and one large crevice on the underside which was generally dry. This structure has ivy cover on both walls of the bridge that may be of use to bats. Crevices in Bridge 6 had no staining, droppings or any evidence previous bat usage but rated 3 given habitat suitability for bats. Bridge 7 is located adjacent to the proposed wayleave at Rheebogue. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs which support a brick arch and stone walls. This bridge has some crevices in stone walls that may be of use to bats and was given a rating of 1. Ivy growing on this bridge could potentially be used by bats The old mill structure at the northern end of the study area is a dilapidated stone building with numerous crevices and spaces likely to be used by roosting bats. Based on the daytimes survey, parts of this structure may even be used by hibernating bats. Only a fraction of this building could be examined given is height and limited accessibility. Evaluation: The bridges and old Mill building are evaluated as being of local importance (higher value) with regard to their potential to provide resting places for bats Linear features With exception of the site compound, the entire proposed development is adjacent to a strip of woodland along the south shore of the River Shannon. The site compound comprises an un-managed field of rank grassland bordered to the west by the aforementioned strip of woodland. The trees adjacent to the proposed development are considered to form a commuting and foraging corridor for bats in the locality. There are numerous trees in the study area that could be used by bats for roosting - mature deciduous trees with dense ivy cover. Many of these trees could not be examined in detail given their height but no signs of roosting were detected at ground level. The Shannon River adjacent to the proposed development provides ideal habitat for Daubenton s bat. Evaluation: The trees adjacent to the proposed development are evaluate as being of local importance (higher value) as they provide feeding opportunities for bats in the form of insects life, and maintain links and ecological corridors between roosts and important feeding areas. Some trees could be used by roosting bats but no trees were identified as being exceptional in this regard. 3.3 Bat Activity Survey Results Bat activity surveys were carried out on the 11 th and again on the 15 th. These surveys commenced at and were completed at the following mornings. Weather conditions during both of these surveys were ideal, with little / no wind, temperatures in the range of o C, and abundant insect activity. A total of four bat species were recorded during the current surveys: Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Daubenton s bat Myotis daubentonii and Leisler's bat Nyctalus leisleri. Soprano Pipistrelle was the most frequently recorded species, followed by Common Pipistrelle, Daubenton's bat and Leisler's bat. Appendix 2 gives a frequency - time graphs showing sonograms of bat calls for bats recorded during the current surveys. The first bat activity was recorded at approximately on both nights, with Soprano Pipistrelle bats being detected on heterodyne and Anabat detectors at the northern end of the study area. It was 10

11 found that these bats were originating from the old mill building and that this is a likely Pipistrelle roost. It is estimated from observations on the 15 th that at least 20 bats emerged from this structure. This is likely to be a maternity roost. Most of these bats flew west along the trees adjacent to the proposed development and appeared to be heading out of the study area. From 22.30, frequent Soprano Pipistrelle bats were recorded foraging along the entire proposed development route. The first Leisler's bat was recorded at and on the 11 th and the 15 th respectively. Considering that this species emerges earlier, than other bats and was not recorded until well after dusk, it is considered that this species was not roosting in the study area at the time of the current surveys. Common Pipistrelle bats were recorded occasionally throughout the study area and appeared to be foraging along the trees near the River Shannon. The only Myotis sp. bat confirmed was Daubenton's bat (by call and by observation collectively). This species was recorded near the slipway and was foraging under Bridge 1 to the north of the proposed development. The Anabat records from the surveys carried out on the 11 th and the 15 th are given in Table 3. Only low level Soprano Pipistrelle bat activity was recorded at the proposed compound site, associated with the trees along the western boundary. A single Leisler's bat was recorded from this location on the 15 th. Table 3 Anabat records from the surveys carried out on the 11 th and the 15 th. Bat species Number of bat records 11 th 15 th Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Daubenton s bat Myotis daubentonii Leisler's bat Nyctalus leisleri 5 7 Evaluation: All bat species are protected under the Irish Wildlife Act (1979, amendment 2000), the Irish Red Data Book, Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive (1992) and Appendix II of the Bern Convention (1979). The proposed development area is used by bats for commuting and foraging, in particular by Soprano Pipistrelle and Daubenton s bats. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development site is linear and the track has mature trees on either side. These trees are identified as an important commuting / foraging corridor for bats. The proposed wayleave is mainly within grassland habitats as is the proposed site compound - the habitats at these locations are of little value with regard to commuting / foraging bats, and of no value with respect to bat roosts. All bats and their roosts are strictly protected in Ireland under the EU Habitats Directive without exception. They are also protected under the Irish Wildlife Act (1976) as amended in Under these laws, it is an offence to intentionally kill, disturb, handle any bat, without a licence. It is also an offence to disturb a bat roost (even if the bats are absent). Except in the simplest cases, it is extremely difficult to survey trees and be certain that any bat roosts have been detected. Tree cavities (which includes under bark or in splits or cracks) are used throughout the year by a variety of species, many of which are known to move unpredictably between roosts. Though no bat roosts were confirmed within the confines of the proposed development during the current surveys, bats could occasionally use the site for roosting, especially during the summer / autumn when bats are most active. For example, an individual Soprano Pipistrelle may use an ivy covered tree or a cavity in a bridge as a night roost. 11

12 During the construction of the proposed development, general mitigation measures for bats will follow the National Road Authority s Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats during the Construction of National Road Schemes NRA (2005) and 'Bat Mitigation Guidelines for Ireland: Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 25' (Kelliher and Marnell, 2006). These documents outline the requirements that should be met in the pre-construction (site clearance) and construction phases of developments to minimise negative impacts on roosting bats, or prevent avoidable impacts resulting from significant alterations to the immediate landscape. The developer should take all reasonable steps to ensure works do not harm individuals by altering working methods or timing to avoid bats. The seasonal occupation of most roosts provides good opportunities for this i.e. tree felling during the winter/early spring in the case of the current study. Given the potential for bats to roost within trees and certain bridges within the proposed development site, it is recommended that a close-up inspection of all trees should be undertaken immediately prior to felling and all bridges prior to any alterations. Bats may roost in bridges at any time of the year but usually in small numbers. Bats will roost in a wide range of crevices and fissures that occur in bridge structures, both under bridge arches and in bridge walls. Nursery roosts are common where relatively large, deep crevices exist to allow a number of females to congregate. In autumn male bats may use bridges as mating stations. Bridges 4, 5 and 6 are the most likely bridges to be used by roosting bats. Any bat roosts found in pre-construction surveys will require a derogation licence if trees / bridges are interfered with. REFERENCES Billington, G. E. and 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. Kendal, English Nature. Kelleher, C. & Marnell, F. (2006) Bat Mitigation Guidelines for Ireland: Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 25. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland Lundy, M.G., Aughney, T., Montgomery, W.I., & Roche, N., (2011) Landscape conservation for Irish bats & species specific roosting characteristics. Bat Conservation Ireland. Marnell, F., Kingston, N. and Looney, D. (2009). Ireland Red List No. 3: Terrestrial Mammals, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin. NPWS (2013). The Status of Protected EU Habitats and Species in Ireland. Overview Volume 1. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. Editor: Deirdre Lynn NRA (2005) Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats Prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority. 12

13 PLATES Plate 1 Bat activity surveys were undertaken using mobile bat detectors (Bat Box Duet Frequency Division/Heterodyne and Anabat SD1 CF Bat Detectors). Plate 2 A Borescope was used to examine small spaces that were difficult to access within bridges and trees. Seen above is an examination being undertaken at Bridge 6. 13

14 Plate 3 Bridge 1 is located approximately 230m to the east of the proposed development. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs supported by stone walls with some crevices in stone walls that may be of use to bats. Plate 4 Bridge 2 is located approximately 200m to the east of the proposed development. This bridge is bridge constructed of a brick arch supported by stone walls with no crevices greater than 100mm deep. 14

15 Plate 5 Underside of Bridge 2. The pointing betwene the stonework on this structure is intact and any crevices are shallow and unilkely to be used by roosting bats. Plate 6 Bridge 3 is located approximately 150m to the north-east of the proposed development. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs supported by concrete walls with a single crevice that may be of use to bats. 15

16 Plate 7 Interior view of crevice in the wall of Bridge 3. No signs of bats were recorded here. Plate 8 Bridge 4 is located approximately 200m from the northern limit of the proposed development. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs supported by stone walls with some crevices in stone walls that may be of use to bats. 16

17 Plate 9 Crevice examined in Bridge 4 during the daytime survey. Some crevives in this bridge were in excess of 20cm deep and were conisderd ideal for bats but no evidence of usage was recorded. Plate 10 Bridge 5 over the River Groody is located near the centre of the proposed development and is constructed of a brick arch and stone walls. Dense ivy cover on bridge provides potential bat roosting habitat. 17

18 Plate 11 Large crevice on the southern side of Bridge 5 provides suitable roosting habitat. This could not be examined in detail for health and safety reasons. Plate 12 Remnant of construction material (corrugated iron) on the underside of Bridge 5 provides suitable roosting habitat. 18

19 Plate 13 Bridge 6 is located at the southern extent of the proposed development (view from the north). This structure has ivy cover on both walls of the bridge that may be of use to bats. Plate 14 Crevices in Bridge 6 had no staining, droppings or any evidence previous bat usage. 19

20 Plate 15 Bridge 7 is located adjacent to the proposed wayleave at Rheebogue. This bridge is a clear span bridge of concrete slabs supporting a brick arch and stone walls with some crevices in stone walls that may be of use to bats. Plate 16 Mature ivy covered trees are frequent along the proposed LST Route 2 corridor. These trees provide ample roosting habitat for bats 20

21 Plate 17 At least 15 Pipistrelle bats were seen flying to the west over the River Groody on the 15 th shortly after sunset. It is considered that these bats came from the roost location at the old Mill building. Plate 18 Old mill buildings at the northern extent of the study area is considered to be used by roosting bats and possibly even hibernating bats. This structure would not be affected by the proposed development. 21

22 Foraging bat Plate 19 At least four bats were recorded foraging over the watercourse at Bridge 1 on both bat activity surveys. Species recorded here were Soprano Pipistrelle and a Myotis sp. bat identified as a Daubenton's bat. Plate 20 Proposed wayleave crossing of the River Groody may involve the removal of trees. None of the trees affected were regarded as being of particular importance for bats. 22

23 Bats in Ireland APPENDIX 1 SYNOPSIS OF BATS IN IRELAND AND LEGISLATION Nine species of bats have been recorded in Ireland. They are Daubenton s (Myotis daubentoni), whiskered (Myotis mystacinus), Natterer s (Myotis natterei), Leisler s (Nyctalus leisleri), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Nathusius pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii), brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) and the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros). All these species, except the lesser horseshoe, are distributed widely across the country. However, Natterer s and whiskered bats are rare and little is known of their ecology (Whilde, 1993). The dependence of Irish bat species on insect prey has left them vulnerable to habitat destruction, land drainage, agricultural intensification and increase use of pesticides. Also, their reliance on buildings as roosting sites has made them particularly vulnerable to renovation works and the use of timber chemical treatment. Buildings are highly important as roosting sites for bats and all Irish bat species use buildings for all roost types. Most significant in terms of roosts in houses are maternity roosts, but cellars and even attics may serve as hibernation sites for bats. Roosts within buildings can far exceed the numbers encountered in trees, bridges, caves or cliffs and roosts of over 1,000 bats have been recorded in buildings (NRA, 2005). Bat legislation In view of their sensitive status across Europe, all species of bat have been listed on Annex IV of the EC Habitats and Species Directive and some, such as the lesser horseshoe bat, are given further protection and listed on Annex II of this Directive. This Directive was transposed into Irish law as the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 and ensures that individual bats and their breeding sites and resting places are fully protected. This has important implications for those who own or manage sites where bats occur. All bat species are also protected under the Wildlife Act (1976) and Wildlife [Amendment] Act (2000) which make it an offence to wilfully interfere with or destroy the breeding or resting place of these species; however, the Acts permit limited exemptions for certain kinds of development. All species of bats in Ireland are listed on Schedule 5 of the 1976 Act, and are therefore subject to the provisions of Section 23, which make it an offence to: Intentionally kill, injure or take a bat, Possess or control any live or dead specimen or anything derived from a bat, Wilfully interfere with any structure or place used for breeding or resting by a bat, Wilfully interfere with a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. Bat roosts Bats were originally cave- and tree- dwelling animals but many now find buildings just as suitable for their needs. Bats are social animals and most species congregate in large colonies during summer. These colonies consist mostly of females of every reproductive class, with some juvenile males from the previous year. Male bats normally roost individually or in small groups meeting up with the females in the late Autumn-early winter, when it is time to mate. In summer, bats seek warm dry buildings in which they can give birth and suckle their young. In winter, they seek out places with a 23

24 constant low temperature and high humidity where they can become torpid and hibernate during adverse weather conditions. However, bats do not hibernate continuously during winter and will awake and hunt during mild nights when there are insects available and it is energetically advantageous to forage. Types of Roosts Maternity Roosts Maternity roosts are the most significant roosts and they are predominantly all-female aggregations that are formed from late May onwards and remain as a relatively cohesive unit until mid to late August. Not all female bats give birth annually. These females that do bear young in a given year avail of a suitable building, tree and sometimes cave (or equivalent). The young are flightless for several weeks and hence are vulnerable to dangers such as tree felling and restoration, reinforcement or demolition of structures such as buildings and bridges. Mating Roosts Most bat species mate in autumn but pregnancy does not occur until the following spring. During this time males will take possession of a cavity in a building, tree, bridge, cave or mine and attract females to these sites to establish a harem. Male bats call both from a perch and in flight in much the same manner that male birds sing. Hibernation Roosts Bats have a high metabolic rate and in temperate countries, such as Ireland, flying insects are not available in sufficient numbers during winter to sustain bats. Therefore, bats hibernate during winter. In hibernation sites, bats are often completely inactive for several days and are extremely vulnerable to disturbance by human activities due to the time taken for them to become sufficiently active to allow escape. Hibernation may extend from November to the end of March, during which time bat activity will take place sporadically. Night Roosts These are roosts which are used as resting places for bats between foraging bouts. They also provide retreats for bats from predators or during inclement weather conditions. They also function as feeding perches and may be important for socialising. Day roosts These are roosts which are used as resting places for bats during daylight hours where bats may be torpid or active, depending on weather conditions. These may include mating and maternity roosts. 24

25 APPENDIX 2 Evaluation criteria for ecological importance Table A2.1 Criteria used in assessing the importance of ecological features (NRA 2009). Importance Criteria International National European Site including Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Site of Community Importance (SCI), Special Protection Area (SPA) or proposed Special Area of Conservation. Proposed Special Protection Area (pspa). Site that fulfils the criteria for designation as a European Site (see Annex III of the Habitats Directive, as amended). Features essential to maintaining the coherence of the Natura 2000 Network. Site containing best examples of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the national level) of the following: Species of bird, listed in Annex I and/or referred to in Article 4(2) of the Birds Directive; and/or Species of animal and plants listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive. Ramsar Site (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially Waterfowl Habitat 1971). World Heritage Site (Convention for the Protection of World Cultural & Natural Heritage, 1972). Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO Man & The Biosphere Programme). Site hosting significant species populations under the Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979). Site hosting significant populations under the Berne Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 1979). Biogenetic Reserve under the Council of Europe. European Diploma Site under the Council of Europe. Salmonid water designated pursuant to the European Communities (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations, 1988, (S.I. No. 293 of 1988). Site designated or proposed as a Natural Heritage Area (NHA). Statutory Nature Reserve. Refuge for Fauna and Flora protected under the Wildlife Acts. National Park. Undesignated site fulfilling the criteria for designation as a Natural Heritage Area (NHA); Statutory Nature Reserve; Refuge for Fauna and Flora protected under the Wildlife Act; and/or a National Park. Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the national level) of the following: Species protected under the Wildlife Acts; and/or Species listed on the relevant Red Data list. Site containing viable areas of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. 25

26 Importance County Local Importance (higher value) Local Importance (lower value) Criteria Area of Special Amenity. Area subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Area of High Amenity, or equivalent, designated under the County Development Plan. Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the County level) of the following: Species of bird, listed in Annex I and/or referred to in Article 4(2) of the Birds Directive; Species of animal and plants listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive; Species protected under the Wildlife Acts; and/or Species listed on the relevant Red Data list. Site containing area or areas of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive that do not fulfil the criteria for valuation as of International or National importance. County important populations of species, or viable areas of semi-natural habitats or natural heritage features identified in the National or Local BAP, if this has been prepared. Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a county context and a high degree of naturalness, or populations of species that are uncommon within the county. Sites containing habitats and species that are rare or are undergoing a decline in quality or extent at a national level. Locally important populations of priority species or habitats or natural heritage features identified in the Local BAP. Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the Local level) of the following: Species of bird, listed in Annex I and/or referred to in Article 4(2) of the Birds Directive Species of animal and plants listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive; Species protected under the Wildlife Acts; and/or Species listed on the relevant Red Data list. Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a local context and a high degree of naturalness, or populations of species that are uncommon in the locality; Sites or features containing common or lower value habitats, including naturalised species that are nevertheless essential in maintaining links and ecological corridors between features of higher ecological value. Sites containing small areas of semi-natural habitat that are of some local importance for wildlife; Sites or features containing non-native species that are of some importance in maintaining habitat links. 26

27 Appendix 3 Sonograms of bats recorded during the bats surveys Figure A3.1 A screenshot of a soprano pipistrelle call recorded during illustrated here using Analook software (for analysis of bat calls registered on the Anabat recorder). Soprano pipistrelle calls typically range from khz. Figure A3.2 Sonogram of a Common Pipistrelle bat recorded during the survey undertaken on 15 th. This graph shows the characteristic continuous frequency tail of a pipistrelle bat. 27

28 Figure A3.3 Sonogram of a Leisler's bat recorded during the bat survey undertaken on 15 th. Figure A3.4 Sonogram of a Leisler's bat and Pipistrelle bat recorded during the bat survey undertaken on 15 th. 28

29 Figure A3.5 Screenshot of a Sonogram of a Daubenton s Bat recorded during the bat survey undertaken on 15 th. 29