The Welsh Assembly Government is responsible for the improvement, operation and maintenance of the motorway and trunk road network in Wales.

Transcription

1 1 INTRODUCTION This paper has been prepared to support a presentation to the Bats and Road Planning event held on 24 June 2010 in Cologne, about the work of the Welsh Assembly Government for Lesser Horseshoe Bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros / Kleine hufeisennase). The Welsh Assembly Government is responsible for the improvement, operation and maintenance of the motorway and trunk road network in Wales. The information in this paper relates to large scale new road infrastructure, rather than small scale projects or maintenance operations. Its purpose is to: Explain the context in which the Welsh Assembly Government has been carrying out its work Provide information on some of the mitigation measures for Lesser Horseshoe Bats which have been carried out by the Welsh Assembly Government Provide principles which have informed the way we have considered these bats in our work Provide sources of further information from the UK It should be noted that the information and mitigation measures described in this paper, may not apply or work in other situations where the context of the landscape, project details; or behaviour of the same or other species of bats is different. 2 CONTEXT UK Population The lesser horseshoe bat population of the UK is estimated to be around 15,000 24,000 individuals concentrated in the south and west of the UK. About half of that population is believed to be resident in Wales. Up to 2008 the population in the UK is believed to be increasing overall. Figures for 2008 onwards are currently not available. Overview of Lesser Horseshoe bat ecology in UK In the UK the following features can be used by Lesser horseshoe bats. 1. Summer/Maternity Roosts: Used during late spring, summer and early autumn. Usually found in: Buildings dating from before the 20 th Century with heated cellars, roofs, attics Caves Structures such as bridges with sufficient space and suitable temperatures. Lesser horseshoe bats cannot easily crawl into small space, so require larger entrances into roosts and a large space to fly around in before they come out to feed. 1

2 The largest maternity roost in Wales (before the arrival of pups) is currently c800 individuals. The sizes of maternity roosts close to our projects range from around 10 to 420 individuals. 2. Hibernacula: To enable hibernation from winter conditions and lack of insect prey. Usually found in: Caves Unheated cellars Mines Ice houses (houses built to store ice during the summer) Tunnels Lesser horseshoes will forage relatively close to the hibernacula in winter if temperatures are warm enough and food is available. It is important to realise that hibernacula can be up to 20km away from the summer/maternity roost. Some summer/maternity roosts can be used during mild winters. There is currently no evidence that the bats migrate within or to/from the UK to avoid winter weather. 3. Night Roosts These are locations used by individual or small numbers of bats as an occasional resting place between feeding: Extensions on entrances to buildings (porches). Cellars Open buildings, sheds Exceptionally they can be found in: 300mm drainage pipe under a single carriageway! (one record of one male found by radiotracking). Also used as a day roost. Crevices in rocks (one record of adult bat entering a crevice during a radiotracking study in Mid Wales). Photo: checking crevices for bats in rock face. Jacobs. 4. Habitats/features used to guide movements The following habitats/features can be used by bats to guide their movements: 2

3 Well connected hedgerows Well connected woodland edges Rivers, streams and linear watercourses Wire fencing/stone walls occasional records. Underpasses and tunnels Photo: automatic detector at culvert used by bats. Jacobs. 5. Habitats used for feeding The following habitats can be used as feeding areas: Broadleaved woodland and scrub, occasionally other types of woodland Vegetated river corridors Grassland/wet grassland close to flight routes or vegetation Photo: Landscape around Porthmadog. Maternity roost of 420 individuals next to road at bottom left. Halcrow. Lesser horseshoe bats prefer to eat: Craneflies (Tipulidae) Moths (Lepidoptera) Midges/small flies (Diptera nematoceran) There is currently insufficient evidence to confirm whether lesser horseshoe bats use specific areas in the autumn (known as swarming areas) to socialise like some other bat species. Legislative requirements The UK legislation, based on European Community Directives, requires the following to be undertaken: 3

4 Creation, management and protection of internationally important (Natura 2000) sites. Environmental Impact Assessment of relevant projects Appropriate Assessment /Assessment of the Implications on European Sites (AIES) of relevant projects on Natura 2000 sites. Strict system of protection of individuals and resting/roosting places against killing and disturbance. In addition, national legislation allows for the creation, management and protection of nationally important sites; and requires the conservation and enhancement of species within the legal powers available to carry out the work. This means that there could be a large number of legislative requirements to be met before a project can go ahead where lesser horseshoe bats are involved. Welsh landscape and lesser horseshoe bat distribution Wales covers 20,779 square kilometres. In comparison England covers 130,422 square kilometres. The central and northern western areas of Wales are generally dominated by mountains and hills, with river valleys cutting through them. (see map on Page 5). Broadleaved woodland and hedgerows can be prominent features of the non-urban lowland landscape. The main urban areas are concentrated in the coastal areas in the south east and north of the country. Built up areas in the other parts tend to be much smaller. Lesser horseshoe bat distribution in Wales is concentrated around North West Wales and the border areas with England in the South East. There are also smaller populations in South West Wales, Mid Wales and North East Wales. (See map on Page 6.) Welsh Assembly Government trunk road and motorway network The majority of our 1,700km network is located within rural areas. There are two Motorways (of four to six lanes of traffic) through south Wales (Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in ,000 to 105,000). The majority of dual carriageways (of four lanes of traffic) are located in south and north Wales. (AADT ,000 to 75,000). The network is predominately of single carriageway standard (with two lanes of traffic eg: width of the carriageway without verges and hard strips is c7.3m (AADT ,600 to 17,000). In many areas the geology and landscape means that the network follows the river valleys, which also provide the best areas for lesser horseshoe bats. The map below shows the spatial overlap between the road network and lesser horseshoe bat areas. 4

5 Potential impacts of major road infrastructure In a recent strategic assessment of all of the Welsh Assembly Government s proposed transport activities across Wales (including roads) the following potential impacts on three species of bats (including Lesser Horseshoe Bats) were identified: POTENTIAL IMPACT (project stage in which the impact may occur) Habitat Loss/fragmentation including effects on foraging areas (construction) Loss of breeding areas, hibernacula etc (construction) Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) Changes to habitats used by species changes to air quality, water quality and water flows (construction and operation) Disturbance to species (eg: direct effects on roosts etc). (Construction) Noise and vibration disturbance changes in behaviour (construction and operation) Visual and lighting disturbance changes in behaviour (construction and operation) Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation) Climate change effects changes in distribution (operation)* 5

6 *Climate change may increase the area of the UK suitable for the bats. MONARCH III computer based modelling completed in 2007 suggests that the climate space available may increase to the north and east. It should be noted that not all impacts are likely to occur in all situations, and for many projects the results of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment processes may conclude that certain impacts are not significant. One of the areas where our knowledge is not so good relates to the way Lesser Horseshoe bats fly over and around roads, especially as the bats have a number of flight characteristics which increase the likelihood of impacts on flight lines and potentially mortality caused by wildlife vehicle collisions. The following generalised flight characteristics can be identified from published texts and field surveys: A reluctance to fly across open areas. However, the width of open area which the bats will refuse to cross, or cross less frequently, is currently unknown. Avoidance of street lights and lit areas, although there is some evidence that the bats may tolerate some lighting in underpasses. The exact amount is currently unknown. Flying high over traffic height using tree canopies/crowns; or if tree canopies are not available between 0.5 and 1.5m above the road surface. Surveys have shown that removal of tree crowns or gaps in canopies may force the bats down to travel at just above road level. The width of gap which causes this behaviour is currently unknown. Flying up and down linear features on the roadside, but on the side away from the road. Using the same routes to reach locations when vegetation is removed, or a road put across the flight path, until a decision is made to fly a different way. The length of time which needs to pass before a different path is chosen is currently unknown. Information on distances travelled by bats between roosts and feeding areas varies from 2km to 22km in one night depending on the age and sex of the bat. One male bat in North Wales has been recorded during a radiotracking study flying 4 times between a roost and hibernacula 10km apart, in one evening. There is some evidence that while at the maternity roost females travelled between 2km and 5km to feed; and juveniles around 1km to 2km. 6

7 3 MITIGATION CASE STUDIES The following 11 case studies are provided to give examples of the more interesting mitigation measures which we have undertaken. There are of course other techniques available which are relatively common. The studies concentrate on the following potential impacts: Habitat Loss/fragmentation including effects on foraging areas (construction) Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation) Case Study 1: A465 Heads of Valley Section 1 Abergavenny to Gilwern Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Habitat Loss/fragmentation including effects on foraging areas (construction) Widening of existing road from 2 lanes (single carriageway) to 4 lanes (dual carriageway). Open to traffic throughout construction period. Maternity roost of c90 individual bats within 300m of project. Bats regularly flew under and possibly over existing road at various locations to reach feeding and other breeding areas. Roost believed to be connected to Natura 2000 site 2km away. Creation of lesser horseshoe bat feeding habitat from a grazed field, by slowing down of stream, excavation of shallow pond, managing grass area to be become more bat friendly (eg: allow flowering plants to flower before cutting) and planting of insect friendly shrubs and trees. Area: approximately 2.2ha Completed in 2008 Concerns that mitigation measures elsewhere would not create enough mitigation to cover the significance of the effects, therefore decision made to create area between road and roost to provide a new feeding area. The location it was hoped would reduce the need for bats to cross over the road to feed Annual monitoring so far shows slow uptake in the use of the area for feeding (1 or 2 individuals per year from none at all). 7

8 Photograph: Excavating shallow pond. Jacobs Case Study 2: A465 Heads of Valley Section 1 Abergavenny to Hirwaun Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) and Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). Widening of existing road from 2 lanes (single carriageway) to 4 lanes (dual carriageway). Road above open to traffic throughout construction period. Maternity roost of c90 individual bats within 300m of project. Bats regularly used the existing vehicular underpass at Hopyard (4.2m high, 3.5m wide, 18.5m long) c individual movements recorded over one night. Roost believed to be connected to Natura 2000 site 2km away. Extension of existing Underpass which was being used by Lesser Horseshoe Bats, during the construction period. Extended culvert 2.4m by 2.4m, with existing culvert total length 67m. Construction of extension phased to be carried out during winter seasons when bats not flying and when other flight paths under the road were not being altered. Plastic guide fencing applied to ensure that bats were able to find the underpass. Work period between 2006 and (see also Case study 3) 8

9 Why undertaken Results of monitoring Photograph: underpass during construction. Jacobs Decision made to remove traffic from underpass and to keep it purely for bats due to numbers of bats using the underpass and closeness of the underpass to the roost. Also a new route for traffic had been provided. There was a risk that work to extend the underpass during construction could stop or reduce the use of the underpass by the bats. Ongoing. Monitoring (2006 onwards) carried out on the basis of being similar to original baseline surveys (2004/5). Bats continued to use the underpass broadly as before. Occasionally small alterations to numbers of bats using the underpass occurred which are probably not related to works being carried out. See also Case Study 3. Case Study 3: A465 Heads of Valley Stage 1 Abergavenny to Hirwaun Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation); and health and safety of humans. Widening of existing road from 2 lanes (single carriageway) to 4 lanes (dual carriageway). Open to traffic throughout construction period. Maternity roost of c90 individual bats within 300m of project. Bats regularly used the Underpass at Hopyard c individual movements recorded over one night. Roost believed to be connected to Natura 2000 site 2km away. Installation of grilles in Hopyard Underpass to stop humans accessing the underpass, other than for maintenance. 9

10 Why undertaken Results of monitoring Photograph: New grille with bar removed. TACP To limit human access to tunnel to prevent damage occurring, while allowing bats through. Original proposal for metal angled grille at entrances of underpass made the bats to turn away and a small number to fly over the road at low level. Tests of types of grilles and location for the grilles within the tunnel carried out, by placing wooden frames at various distances from either end. Vandalism of frames forced decision to put final metal (type of metal) grilles at c1m from the tunnel entrances in Final grille dimensions: Bars 25mm diameter; vertical spacing between bars at top of grille 1.2 m; and horizontal spacing between supports 130mm. Ongoing. With the final grille and full set of bars in place, majority of bats turned away and went out of the tunnel. When one bar of the grille removed (see photo) bats passed through. Experiment in 2010 to see if bats will get used to full set of bars. Case Study 4: A477 Sageston to Redberth Improvement Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) and Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). New single carriageway to remove traffic from two villages. Road crosses flight routes to and from roosts and feeding areas. Numbers using routes relatively low at 2 individuals, but routes also used by up to 4 individuals of rarer Greater Horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). 10

11 Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Photograph: 2m diameter underpass in Hyder Installation of Armco culverts during construction in m and 2m in diameter on exact flight paths, and 1 to 2m above ground level. Culvert size chosen as maximum size possible which could be installed. Embankment excavated to form entrance and shrubs planted to link into surrounding countryside. Risk of bat casualties became apparent when construction period surveys highlighted more use of flight lines than originally thought. Flight lines in culvert locations were across a new embankment, one culvert at an angle to the line of the road. Monitoring period Majority of bats used underpasses almost immediately; one still flew over road. No road casualties recorded during survey periods. Please note small number of bats involved. Case Study 5: A479 Talgarth Relief Road Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) and Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). Single carriageway bypass and improvement of existing road to remove traffic from centre of town. At location of bat crossing - single carriageway and extra lane uphill. Maternity roosts found in old hospital and farms around the town, main flight path connecting roosts discovered to be circu- 11

12 Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Photograph: Existing culvert. Hyder. lar around town using woods, hedgerows and large trees; and a river. New road crosses flight path where 10 to 17 bat movements using a flight path either along stream through existing culvert or across crowns of mature trees. Provision of new culvert (dimensions 2.5m) 15m from existing culvert (dimensions 0.9m). New culvert built outside of bat flight period winter 2006/7 and kept open during bats flight periods Need to maintain flight path after removal of hedgerow with mature trees. (See also Case study 6). Existing underpass also used by otters (Lutra lutra), badgers (Meles meles). Monitoring ongoing since At first bats split between flying through culverts and also through trees. Removal of branch from tree nearest road in winter 2007/8 moved all bats to use culverts. Results during and post construction (so far) suggest pathway remained in use in similar frequency and numbers as before. 12

13 Case Study 6: A479 Talgarth Relief Road Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Photograph: Temporary fencing in place. Hyder. Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) Single carriageway bypass and improvement of existing road to remove traffic from centre of town. At location of bat crossing - single carriageway and extra lane uphill. Maternity roosts found in old hospital and farms around the town, main flight path connecting roosts discovered to be circular around town using woods, hedgerows and large trees; and a river. New road crosses flight path where 10 to 17 bat movements using a flight path either along stream through existing culvert or across crowns of mature trees. Temporary Construction Fencing*. Plastic fencing on metal frames moved away from the site during the day and returned to position at night during the bats flight period. Fencing along 40m gap between new culvert and the vegetation left in place. Risk that bats will not use flight route as no vegetation to follow or to offer protection from predators (eg: birds of prey, owls etc). Monitoring in 2006/7 showed that bats continued to use route with a similar frequency as before construction. * it should be noted that some UK advisors do not agree with providing temporary construction fencing. Consideration needs to be given to individual circumstances. 13

14 Case Study 7: A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllynfi Improvement Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) and Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). Single Carriageway provided to bypass three villages. Main roost 2.1km away is a Natura 2000 site. Surveys during construction (2001) found more bat activity than expected in a number of locations across the road. Radiotracking (2002/2003) confirmed that bats travelling across road using hedgerows/trees to feeding areas, and roosting and hibernacula sites. Bollard/Vertical road side lighting*. Type: Holophane Denver 18W to 24W compact fluorescence. Temporary lighting trialled in 2002, final installation Planting and fencing also put in at bottom of embankment along a diverted stream to guide bats to the alternative crossing point. Planting was already on the embankment when the lights were installed. Construction surveys in 2001 found new embankment had been located on a flight line for 20 to 84 bat movements, rather than the 2 movements recorded previously. 6 lesser horseshoe bat casualties found within first year as bats were following the shape of embankment. Surveys ongoing since Numbers of movements at crossing point reduced to zero by end of 2003; with increase in activity at nearby bridge (Bethesda Bach Bridge) and in flight lines further away from crossing point (see Case Study 9). In 2007 major vandalism of the bollards created dark corridor, occasional surveys showed that bats did not return to the light. Casualty surveys carried out on a daily basis between mid- August and end of October/November each year (except 2006) shown no further casualties at the original crossing point. 14

15 Photograph: Bollard light during the day L Wyatt * Our approach is to use lighting as a last resort, after considering other options. Concerns have been raised that diverting flight lines of bats too far, may have impact on energy requirements of bats, although evidence to support or reject this is not available at present. Case Study 8: A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllyfni Improvement Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) and Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). Single Carriageway provided to bypass three villages. Main roost 2.1km away is a Natura 2000 site. Surveys during construction (2001) found more bat activity than expected in a number of locations across the road. Radiotracking (2002/2003) confirmed that bats travelling across road using hedgerows/trees to feeding areas, and roosting and hibernacula sites. Fencing at 2m and 4m height. 2m height with single and double extensions to stop bats crossing the road. Installed 2001/2. 15

16 Why undertaken Results of monitoring Photograph: 2m high fencing with extensions. L Wyatt Around 1 to 8 movements per survey event had been made of bats continuing use 2 flight paths even though a new culvert (2m diameter) and new vegetation had been put into place. Approximately 1 to 2 casualties each year during 2001/2 in two locations. Did not work. Bats adjusted flight to return to ground level after flying up, around and over fencing. Number of movements of bats in the area remain similar to the original situation (1 to 8 movements), with occasional casualties (1 to 3 in various years since). Difficult (if not impossible) to install any further mitigation at these locations, other than reinforcing and managing planting to guide bats to new culvert. Case Study 9: A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllyfni Improvement Potential Impact Context of the project Context for bats Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). Single Carriageway provided to bypass three villages. Main roost 2.1km away is a Natura 2000 site. Surveys during construction (2001) found more bat activity than expected in a number of locations across the road. Radiotracking (2002/2003) confirmed that bats travelling across 16

17 Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Photograph: road using hedgerows/trees to feeding areas, and roosting and hibernacula sites. Ski Jump consisting of an earth bank and large trees provided within grass area on one side of the road. (2004). See also Case Study 10. Up to 39 movements at this point each year since construction with only one casualty in 2003 so far. However, casualties at other nearby locations with fewer movements and consideration of the existing vegetation pattern at this location (see photograph), suggested that this point could be managed to become the preferred crossing point in the longer term. Monitoring since 2001 shows that number of movements at this location has dropped to between 2 and 12, possibly due to wet summers in 2007/8/9. Casualties limited at this location, but still occur at other locations nearby. Bats found to use ski jump then drop down to fly at ground level see also Case Study 10. View from gap in hedge towards Ski Jump and across road L Wyatt Case Study 10: A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllynfi Improvement Potential Impact Context of Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) and Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). Single Carriageway to bypass three villages 17

18 the project Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Main roost 2.1km away is a Natura 2000 site. Surveys during construction (2001) found more bat activity than expected in a number of locations across the site. Radiotracking (2002/2003) confirmed that bats travelling across road using hedgerows/trees to feeding areas, and roosting and hibernacula sites. T shaped bat bridge. Clearance from road 5.7m. Dimensions of T shape 2m by 2m. Wire mesh size 50mm x 50mm. T shape and detailed design chosen on advice of bat and bridge specialist advice. Installed January Up to 39 individuals each year crossing at this point. Ski jump (Case study 9) not sufficient to make bats fly over top of traffic. Existing vegetation on both sides of the road suggested link could be restored. None so far. Started in April Photograph: Bat Bridge, Jan 2010, G Billington Case Study 11: A487 Porthmadog to Tremadog Improvement Potential Impact Context of the project Damage to flight lines between roosting/feeding areas (construction) and Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (operation). Provides bypass of town and two surrounding villages at single carriageway standard. Sensitive landscapes and international and national sites throughout the area. 18

19 Context for bats Description of measure undertaken Why undertaken Results of monitoring Bypass within 75m of roost of c420 individuals. Vegetated bridge, with fencing and planting to funnel bats, on exact line of existing flight path. Indicative design of the bridge requires it to be 7m wide and 40m long with 1.8m high solid parapets (sides) to provide a dark corridor. Large planting boxes and upturned tree stumps, soil and branches from vegetation clearances will be laid out across the bridge. Detailed field survey (2004 to 2009) and radiotracking of females and juveniles (2005) had confirmed importance of movements from the roost across road at 5 locations. Most flight paths will have >2.5m underpasses for the bats to fly through aligned on the original flight paths. However, this flight path is over a cutting/valley. Considering the importance of the flight path (c 100 movements per night) the decision was made to provide it for bats only, although attempts were made to find another suitable non-bat use for the bridge which would have made the reasons for the bridge stronger. Construction has recently started. Construction monitoring due to start soon. Photograph: Design of proposed bridge. Halcrow. 19

20 4 SURVEYING CONSIDERATIONS Our published advice (Highways Agency et al, 2008, Nature Conservation Advice in relation to Bats) which covers all bat species, states that surveys should provide sufficient information to find out: Which bat species are present Where they roost and forage at different times of the year What routes they use to travel between roosts and foraging areas within the immediate vicinity of the road/structure/tree/building concerned; and How the project will impact on the bats and what mitigation can be included to reduce the significant effects. Critical to this is the scoping of the surveys (setting out and agreeing the details of the locations, timing and methodologies to be used to carry out the surveys); and also having the ability to review the scope of surveys during the survey period, in case changes need to be made. Generally, surveys will consist of reviews of existing information and field based surveys. For lesser horseshoe bats on our large scale projects with significant effects on flight lines, we do recommend that a full season s surveys of flight lines (eg: from late April/May to September) are carried out. The intensity of those surveys over the season depends on the potential significance of effects of the project; and on the technology used. When using hand held bat detectors consideration should be made of surveying on two consecutive nights each month over the season. When automated detectors are used, this may be reduced, but consideration has to be given to the location and characteristics of the recorders. Special consideration is usually given in these surveys to recording how the bats fly across the road (eg: height and location). In some cases where projects have been delayed, we have kept the survey information up to date with ongoing surveys, as it is possible that overtime the use of the area by lesser horseshoe bats, or the population of the bats in the area changes. This is done so that any significant, and potentially long term changes can be identified early (eg: changes in flight lines, use of areas, or even failure of maternity roosts/hibernacula) and dealt within the design and assessment process. 20

21 5 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The aim of all of our design advice is to encourage a holistic and integrated approach to the way environmental issues are dealt with within the design and assessment processes we use. Examples of this would be the consideration of the design of a bat bridge within a sensitive landscape area; or the design of a road drainage scheme and its effects on bat flight paths and feeding areas. Experience has taught us that we need to ensure that: Relevant designs are brought forward which are cost effective, and meet the requirements of legislation and guidance There is close cooperation between engineers, ecologist and bat specialist as a good understanding of the actual situation and implications of mitigation is critical for those working on solutions. That liaison with relevant organisations with responsibility for bats is carried out. Understanding the context of the project and the bats is an extremely important consideration. 6 MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS Our guidance states that monitoring is: Vital to provide data on the success or failure of measures Vital to increase our understanding of the use of roads by bats; And that it should be: Appropriate to the mitigation provided Agreed with the relevant parties I would add that monitoring should be included in the contract requirements to ensure that it is taken forward. For most of the projects here, there have been surveys to inform a baseline before the scheme is started (either during the design process or just before construction), which then informs the monitoring carried out during and after construction in terms of locations and survey effort. Bat casualty monitoring after construction have been usually considered on a case by case basis, depending on a judgement of whether there is a high risk of failure of mitigation measures causing road casualties. From experience we have found that it can be difficult to isolate the effects or changes potentially caused by the road on movements and populations, and those caused by non-road 21

22 sources (eg: bad weather, changes in sizes of roosts, physical changes to the roost itself, or where a large roosts split into two). 7 CONCLUSIONS The paper has described the context in which the Welsh Assembly Government undertakes its work with Lesser Horseshoe Bats and large new road projects. It is true to say that our knowledge since the beginning of the century has improved, and we are now able to refer to examples of successful mitigation to support the application of mitigation in new circumstances after considering the context involved. However, some measures which have been applied have had to be based on best professional judgement of the situation involved, and only monitoring will tell whether they are effective. We are hoping to: Continue to learn from our experiences, and the experience of others in similar situations. Continue to improve the ability of engineers, ecologist and bat specialists to understand the issues involved, and develop practical solutions to avoid, reduce or if possible remedy effects. Improve the way we understand context of the projects and the use of the surrounding areas by bats Improve the way we undertake Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment /Assessment of the Implications on European Sites. 8 FURTHER UK BASED INFORMATION Please note that not all of the references are specifically written for the road situation. Those that are have a * next to them. Bat Conservation Trust, 2007, Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines, Bat Conservation Trust. *Bickmore, C, 2003, Review of work carried out on trunk road network in Wales for bats, Welsh Assembly Government and Countryside Council for Wales from or author Entwhistle, A et al, 2001, Habitat Management for Bats A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisors, JNCC, *Highways Agency et al, 2008, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Interim Advice Note Nature Conservation Advice in relation to Bats 116/08 English version 22

23 Wales version or from Author Mitchell Jones AJ, 2004, Bat Workers Manual (3 rd Edition), JNCC Schofield, H, 2009, Lesser Horseshoe Bat Conservation Handbook, The Vincent Wildlife Trust Other UK National Highway Authority contacts: England - Stuart Wilson, Highways Agency Northern Ireland Stephen Tweed, Roads Service Scotland Angus Corby, Transport Wales 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 Contractors and Consultants for case study information and photographs: Mowlems/TACP/Gwynedd Council/Greena Ecology A487 Llanwnda to South of Llanllynfi Improvement BAM Nuttall/TACP/Jacobs A465 Heads of Valley Dualling Section 1 Jacobs A465 Heads of Valley Dualling Section 2 Halcrow/WYG A487 Porthmadog to Tremadog Improvement BAM Nuttall/Hyder/WYG/Just Mammals A479 Talgarth Relief Road BAM Nuttall/Arup/Hyder/Cresswell Associates A477 Sageston to Redberth Bypass 2 For comments on the paper: Stuart Wilson, Highways Agency Jean Matthews, Countryside Council for Wales 23

24 3 Finally, I would like to thank to all the Welsh bat groups, and individual engineers and bat workers who while not mentioned above, have assisted with increasing our understanding of the issues we are facing and developing solutions. Len Wyatt CEnv MIEEM Environment Science Advisor, Transport and Strategic Regeneration, Telephone: 044 (0) len.wyatt@wales.gsi.gov.uk Welsh Assembly Government, Cathays Park Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF10 3NQ 24