North Somerset and Mendip Bats special area of Conservation (SAC)-Guidance on Development. Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Appendices

Appendix 1: Comparison of Home Ranges of Horseshoe Bats Derived from Radio-Tracking Studies

Greater Horseshoe Bats

Results

Average Distance (km)

Maximum Distance (km)

Reference

Non-Breeding Roost

Mean maximum distance from roost to foraging area (maximum distance for each tracked individual averaged over the colony, foraging areas estimated used 90% cluster analysis) 2.17km, range 0.95-2.93km (Boar Mill) and 2.44km, range 0.61-3.76 (Creech).

2.17

2.93

Flanders, J. & Jones, G., 2009. Roost use, ranging behaviour and diet of Greater Horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) using a transitional roost. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 888-896.

2.44

3.76

Maternity Roosts

Maximum distance travelled from roost 4km for juveniles and 8km for adults. Majority of foraging areas are within 6km of roost.

 

8

Billington, G. 2003. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Buckfastleigh Caves Site of Special Scientific Interest: English Nature Research Report no. 573. Peterborough: English Nature.

Maximum distance travelled from roost 7.5km for adult bats. The majority of foraging areas are within 5km of roost.

 

7.5

English Nature Research Report no. 496

Maximum distance travelled from roost 6.8km, mean 1.9km (22 May-5 June), 13.9km, mean 6.2km (18-31 July). Overall 92% of foraging time spent within 6km of the roost and 60% within 4km. In May-June 92.7% foraging was within 3km, in July only 9.7% occurred within 3km. Only one bat flew further than 6km during May.

1.9

6.8

Robinson, M. F., Webber, M. & Stebbins, R. E. 2000. Dispersal and foraging behaviour of Greater Horseshoe bats, Brixham, Devon. English Nature Research Report No. 344. Peterborough: English Nature.

Maximum distance travelled from roost 4.5km (juvenile) and 6.8km (adult). Majority of time spent within 4km. However,, measured in GIS the range is 8km

 

8.0

Billington, G. 2001. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Brockley Hall Stables Site of Special Scientific Interest, May – August 2001.English Nature Research Report No. 442. Peterborough: English Nature.

Maximum distance travelled from roost 3.6km (juvenile) 4.5km (adult).

2.2

4.5

Duverge, P., 1996. Foraging activity, habitat use, development of juveniles, and diet of the Greater Horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum - Schreber 1774) in south-west England.  PhD Thesis, University of Bristol.

Maximum distance travelled from roost 5.52km, mean distance from roost to foraging event (extended period of relatively stable signal strength indicating foraging behaviour), averaged over all fixes of all individuals tracked 1.68km ± 0.09.

 

5.52

Rossiter, S.J., Jones, G., Ransome, R.D., Barratt, E.M., 2002. Relatedness structure and kin-biased foraging in the Greater Horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 51: 510-518.

Maximum distance 5.75km measured from radio tracking fixes in GIS

 

5.75

Jones, Dr. G. & Billington, G. 1999. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Cheddar, North Somerset. Taunton: English Nature.

Greater Horseshoe bat maximum foraging distance from the roost was 5.81km in June and 5.98km in August, with average distances being approximately 3.58km and 3.83km, respectively. These are similar figures to the 1999 study, where greater horseshoes were proven to forage up to 5.75km from the roost (Jones and Billington, 1999).

3.58

5.81

Rush,T. & Billington, G. 2013. Cheddar Reservoir 2: Radio tracking studies of greater horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats, June and August 2013. Witham Friary: Greena Ecological Consultancy.

3.83

5.98

Maximum distance 4km measured from radio tracking fixes in GIS

 

4

Billington, G. 2000. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Mells, Near Frome, Somerset. Peterborough: English Nature

Average distance to foraging areas was <3km until the end of May and after that it was around 5km. The longest distance travelled by one bat was 10.5km.

 

5

Billington, G. 2000. Combe Down Greater Horseshoe bats: radio tracking study. Bat Pro Ltd on behalf of Bath & North East Somerset Council

Maximum distance travelled from roost 7.4km. 50% of bat locations were within 1.7km of the roost.

1.7

7.4

Bontadina, F. 2002. Conservation ecology in the horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and Rhinolophus hipposideros. PhD Thesis, University of Bern.

 

Lesser Horseshoe Bats

Results

Average Distance (km)

Maximum Distance (km)

Reference

Maximum distance travelled from roost, where home range had reached asymptote 273 - 4177m, mean maximum distance 1955m. Fifty percent of tracking locations were within 600m of maternity roost.

1.96

4.177

Bontadina, F., Schofield, H., Naef-Daenzer, B., 2002. Radio-tracking reveals that Lesser Horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros) forage in woodland. Journal of Zoology 258: 281-290.

Bats were recorded ranging 6km to the north, 1.5km east, 2km south and 5km to the west.

 

6

Billington, G. 2005. Radio tracking study of Lesser Horseshoe bats at Hestercombe House Site of Special Scientific Interest, July 2005. English Nature Somerset & Gloucestershire Team.

The bats foraged within a radius of 1.0-4.0km from the roost, with the majority remaining within 2.0km. The average foraging radius in May was slightly higher than that recorded in August (1.93km v/s 1.52km)

1.93

4

Duvergé, L. 2008. Report on bat surveys carried out at  Hestercombe House SSSITaunton, Somerset, in 2007 and 2008. Cullompton: Kestrel Wildlife Consultants.

Lesser Horseshoe bat maximum foraging distance from the roost was 3.24km in June and 6.08km in August, with average distances being approximately 2.26km and 3.72km, respectively.

2.26

3.42

Billington, G. 2013. Cheddar Reservoir 2: Radio tracking studies of greater horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats, June and August 2013. Witham Friary: Greena Ecological Consultancy.

3.72

6.08

The mean maximum range distance from the maternity roost for adult females was identical in each landscape (2.0 km) although the maximum distance an individual adult female was recorded flying to did vary. The value was 4.1 km for lowland, 3.5 km for high quality and 3.3 km for upland. Nulliparous females and juveniles were recorded a maximum of 4.5 km and 3.8 km respectively from the maternity roost in the lowland landscape.

2

4.1

Knight, T. 2006. The use of landscape features and habitats by the Lesser Horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros). PhD Thesis, University of Bristol.

2

3.5

2

3.3

Maximum distance from maternity roost to centre of furthest foraging area 3.6km, 3.2km and 2.8km respectively. Mean distance from maternity roost to night roosts 1.71km ± 0.98 SD, 2.4km ± 1.44 SD and 1.34km ± 0.86 SD respectively.

 

3.6

Knight, T., Jones, G., 2009. Importance of night roosts for bat conservation: roosting behaviour of the Lesser Horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros. Endangered Species Research 9: 79-86.

 

3.2

 

2.8

One individual tracked - Maximum distance travelled from roost 3.6km, mean distance between roost and foraging area (calculated using MCPs, no further info given) 2.4km

2.4

3.6

Holzhaider, J., Kriner, E., Rudolph, B.-U., Zahn, A., 2002. Radio-tracking a Lesser Horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) in Bavaria: an experiment to locate roosts and foraging sites. Myotis 40: 47-54.

 

Appendix 2: Greater Horseshoe Bat Habitat Suitability Index

Text Colour

Black = Habitat Codes

Blue = Matrix Codes

Green = Formation Codes

Red = Management Codes

NP = Not permissible. It is considered that the habitat is not replaceable

A complete list with full descriptions and parameters of the habitat labels can be obtained from Somerset Environmental Records Centre[1].

Code

Label

HSI

Notes

WB0

Broadleaved, mixed, and yew woodland

6

Four principal habitat types: scrub, meadow, deciduous woodland and grazed pasture (Billington, 2000b)

High over grown hedges and tree lines surrounding pasture, rough grassland or scrub, with nearby woodland edge and riparian habitat (Billington, 2003; Billington, 2000a)

Limited foraging recorded within woodland itself (Billington,  2003)

Macro and micro moths densest where grass or litter, less so where there are ferns, moss, bare ground, herbs. Richer where native tree diversity and larger basal area. Species such as oak, willow and birch have large numbers of moths whereas beech has little comparable to non-native species such as sycamore (Fuentes-Montemayor et al, 2012)

Woodland has high levels of moths (Ransome, 1997a)

Have been found to spend significant times in woodland, being sheltered, often warmer at night, and insects are much more abundant than open fields (Billington, 2000)

Support the retention of all mature ancient semi natural deciduous woodland, old orchards and parkland (Ransome, 1997)

Extensive use of woodland edge (Ransome, 1997)

Limited foraging of adults were recorded in woodlands of only a few minutes duration except during medium-heavy rainfall when most of the foraging time was spent in broadleaf and coniferous woodland (Billington, 2000)

WB1

Mixed woodland

5

WB2

Scrub woodland

1

WB3

Broadleaved woodland

6

WB31

Upland oakwood [=Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles(AN1)]

NP

WB32

Upland mixed ashwoods

NP

WB33

Beech and yew woodlands

3

WB331

Lowland beech and yew woodland

NP

WB3311

Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion)

NP

WB3312

Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests

NP

WB3313

Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles

NP

WB331Z

Other lowland beech and yew woodland

3

WB33Z

Other beech and yew woodlands

3

WB34

Wet woodland

3

WB341

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

NP

WB342

Bog woodland

NP

WB34Z

Other wet woodland

3

WB36

Lowland mixed deciduous woodland

6

WB361

Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains

NP

WB362

Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli

NP

WB363

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines [lowland]

NP

WB36Z

Other lowland mixed deciduous woodland

6

WB3Z

Other broadleaved woodland

6

WC0

Coniferous woodland

1

WCZ

Other coniferous woodland

1

IH0

Introduced shrub

0

Note: Introduced shrub can include Buddleia, which attracts Large Yellow Underwing. If present the HSI score should +1 or 2 according to abundance

Uniform stands of trees are poorer in invertebrates than more diversely structured woodland (Kirby, 1988).

WF0

Unidentified woodland formation

1

WF1

Semi-natural

1

WF11

Native semi-natural

1

WF111

Canopy Cover >90%

0.1

WF112

Canopy Cover 75 - 90%

0.25

WF113

Canopy Cover 50 - 75%

0.75

WF114

Canopy Cover 20 - 50%

1

WF12

Non-native semi-natural

1

WF121

Canopy Cover >90%

0.1

WF122

Canopy Cover 75 - 90%

0.25

WF123

Canopy Cover 50 - 75%

0.75

WF124

Canopy Cover 20 - 50%

1

WF2

Plantation

0.75

WF21

Native species plantation

0.75

WF22

Non-native species plantation

0.25

WF3

Mixed plantation and semi-natural

0.75

WF31

Mixed native species semi-natural with native species plantation

0.75

WF32

Mixed native species semi-natural with non-native species plantation

0.5

WF33

Mixed non-native species semi-natural with native species plantation

0.25

WF34

Mixed non-native species semi-natural with non-native species plantation

0.1

WM0

Undetermined woodland management

1

Support the retention of all mature ancient semi natural deciduous woodland, old orchards and parkland (Ransome, 1997a)

Deer and sheep grazing in woodland results in short cropped open glades (Ransome, 2007a)

In woodland mainly used clearings and woodland edge (Billington, 2009)

Rides, footpaths … were used by greater horseshoe bats when flying in these feeding areas. (Duvergé & Jones, 1994)

WM1

High forest

1

WM2

Coppice with standards

0.25

WM3

Pure coppice

0.25

WM4

Abandoned coppice

0.25

WM5

Wood-pasture and parkland

1

WM51

Currently managed wood pasture/parkland

1

WM52

Relic wood pasture/parkland

1

WM6

Pollarded woodland

0.75

WM7

Unmanaged woodland

1

WMZ

Other woodland management

1

WG0

Unidentified woodland clearing

1

WG1

Herbaceous woodland clearing

1

WG2

Recently felled/coppiced woodland clearing

1

WG3

Woodland ride

1

WG4

Recently planted trees

0.5

WGZ

Other woodland clearings/openings

1

GA0

Acid grassland

6

The Integrated Habitat System considers scrub as a matrix habitat when less than 0.25ha. Otherwise use WB2

Most important factor is grazed pasture (Ransome, 1997)

Within 1 kilometre of the roost the presence of permanent grazed pasture is critical for juvenile greater horseshoe bats. A high density of grazing animals should be present giving high presence of dung. Within the remainder of the roost foraging range grazing regimes can be more flexible provided adequate pasture is available. Longer swards benefit the larvae of noctuid moths. (Ransome, 1996)

The short turf produced by sheep grazing may be responsible for high Melolontha levels (Ransome, 1997) Sheep dung provides prey Short grazed habitat for Melolontha and Tupilids. All species requires short grass to oviposit. (Ransome, 1997; Ransome, 1997) Aphodius live in cow, sheep and horse dung (Ransome, 1997)

Meadows which have been cut, and where animals are grazing, were also used (Duverge & Jones, 1994)

GA1

Lowland dry acid grassland

6

GC0

Calcareous grassland

6

GC1

Lowland calcareous grassland

6

GC11

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates [Festuco-Brometalia]

 NP

GC12

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates [Festuco-Brometalia] [important orchid sites]

NP

GN0

Neutral grassland

6

GN1

Lowland meadows

6

GN11

Lowland hay meadows [Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis]

NP

GI0

Improved grassland

3

GP0

Grassland, probably improved

3

GU0

Grassland, semi improved

4

SC1

Dense/continuous scrub

-3

SC11

Dense/continuous scrub: native shrubs

-3

SC12

Dense/continuous scrub: introduced shrubs

-3

SC2

Open/scattered scrub

1

SC21

Open/scattered scrub: native shrubs

1

SC22

Open/scattered scrub: introduced shrubs

1

TS0

Scattered trees

0

TS1

Scattered trees some veteran

1

TS11

Broadleaved

1

TS12

Mixed

0

TS13

Coniferous

0

TS2

Scattered trees none veteran

0

TS21

Broadleaved

0

TS22

Mixed

0

TS23

Coniferous

0

PA0

Patchy bracken

0

PA1

Patchy bracken communities with a diverse vernal flora (NVC U20a)

0

PA2

Small continuous bracken stands

0

PA3

Scattered bracken

0

OT0

Tall herb and fern (excluding bracken)

0

OT3

Tall ruderal

0

OT4

Non-ruderal

0

OT41

Lemon-scented fern and Hard-fern vegetation (NVC U19)

0

OT4Z

Other non-ruderal tall herb and fern

0

OTZ

Other tall herb and fern

0

HS0

Ephemeral/short perennial herb

0

BG1

Bare ground

0

GM0

Undetermined grassland etc. management

1

GM1

Grazed

1

GM11

Cattle grazed

1

GM12

Sheep grazed

0.75

GM13

Horse grazed

0.8

GM14

Mixed grazing

0.8

GM1Z

Other grazing

0.75

GM2

Mown

0.3

GM21

Silage

0.2

GM22

Hay

0.3

GM23

Frequent mowing

0

GM2Z

Other mowing regime

0.2

GM3

Hay and aftermath grazing

0.8

GM4

Unmanaged

1

GM5

Burning/swaling

0

GMZ

Other grassland etc. management

0

GL1

Amenity grassland

0.1

GL11

Golf course

0.25

GL12

Urban parks, playing and sports fields

0

GL1Z

Other amenity grassland

0.1

GL2

Non-amenity grassland

1

GL21

Permanent agricultural grassland

1

GL211

Arable reversion grassland

1

GL2111

Species-rich conservation grassland

1

GL211Z

Other arable reversion grassland

1

Support the retention of all ,,, old orchards  (Ransome, 1997)

GL21Z

Other permanent agricultural grassland

1

GL2Z

Other grassland use

0.25

CL3

Un-intensively managed orchards

1

CL31

Traditional orchards

1

CL32

Defunct orchards

1

CL3Z

Other un-intensively managed orchards

1

CF1

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh

1

BR0

Bracken

0

HE0

Dwarf shrub heath

0

HE1

European dry heaths

0

HE2

Wet heaths

0

EO0

Bog

NP

EM0

Fen, marsh and swamp

2

EM1

Swamp

0

Tipulid larval development is favoured by damp conditions, any aquatic environments and/or marshes should be retained Aquatic environments will also favour the production of caddis flies (Trichoptera)  (Ransome, 1997b; Ransome, 1997a) in certain months, May and late August/September  when other food supplies may be erratic (Ransome 1997a)

Significant Trichopteran consumption at roosts close to extensive river or lake habitats (Ransome, 1997)

Used for commuting. to cross the central Moors south of Cheddar where the bats frequently fly below ground level in drainage channels such as the Cheddar Canal (Jones & Billington, 1999)

The River Dart, a large river system, mostly banked by broadleaved woodland was also a key habitat (Billington, 2003)

The caterpillar of Large Yellow Underwing can feed on grape vines

EM11

Reedbeds

0

EM2

Marginal and inundation vegetation

1

EM21

Marginal vegetation

1

EM22

Inundation vegetation

0

EM3

Fens

2

EM31

Fens [and flushes - lowland]

2

EM312

Springs

1

EM313

Alkaline fens [lowland]

1

EM4

Purple moor grass and rush pastures [Molinia-Juncus]

1

AS0

Standing open water and canals

4

AS1

Dystrophic standing water

2

AS11

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds

2

AS1Z

Other dystrophic standing water

2

AS2

Oligotrophic standing waters

3

AS21

Oligotrophic lakes

2

AS3

Mesotrophic standing waters

4

AS31

Mesotrophic lakes

2

AS3Z

Other mesotrophic standing waters

2

AS4

Eutrophic standing waters

3

AS5

Marl standing water

2

AS6

Brackish standing water with no sea connection

0

AS7

Aquifer fed naturally fluctuating water bodies

2

ASZ

Other standing open water and canals

2

AC0

Channel of unknown origin

1

AC1

Artificial channels

1

AC11

Drains, rhynes and ditches

1

AC111

Species-rich drains, rhynes and ditches

1

AC11Z

Other drains, rhynes and ditches

1

AC12

Artificially modified channels

1

AC13

New artificial channels

0.75

AC14

Canals

0.5

AC1Z

Other artificial channels

1

AC2

Natural/naturalistic channels

1

AO0

Open water of unknown origin

0.25

AO1

Artificial open water

0.25

AO11

Reservoir

0.25

AO12

Gravel pits, quarry pools, mine pools and marl pits

0.25

AO13

Industrial lagoon

0

AO14

Scrape

0

AO15

Moat

0.5

AO16

Ornamental

0

AO1Z

Other artificial open water

0

AO2

Natural open water

0.25

AP1

Pond

0.1

AP11

Ponds of high ecological quality

0.5

AP1Z

Other pond

0.1

AP2

Small lake

0.25

AP3

Large lake

0.25

LT1

Canal-side

0.25

LT11

Canal-side with woodland

1

LT12

Canal-side with scrub or hedgerow and standard trees

1

LT13

Canal-side with scrub or hedgerow

1

LT14

Canal-side with layered vegetation

0.8

LT15

Canal-side with grassland

0.5

LT16

Canal-side with damaged banks

0.25

LT17

Canal-side with constructed banks

0

LT18

Other canal-side type

0.25

AR0

Rivers and streams

3

AR1

Headwaters

3

AR11

Chalk headwaters

3

AR12

Active shingle rivers [headwaters]

3

AR1Z

Other headwaters

3

AR2

Chalk rivers (not including chalk headwaters)

3

AR21

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation (chalk substrate)

3

AR2Z

Other chalk rivers

3

AR3

Active shingle rivers [non headwaters]

3

ARZ

Other rivers and streams

3

LT2

River-side

1

LT21

River-side with woodland

1

LT22

River-side with scrub or hedgerow and standard trees

1

LT23

River-side with scrub or hedgerow

1

LT24

River-side with layered vegetation

0.8

LT25

River-side with grassland

0.5

LT26

River-sdie with vertical banks

1

LT27

River-side with damaged banks

0.25

LT28

River-side with constructed banks

0

LT29

Other river-side type

0.25

CR0

Arable and horticulture

1

CR1

Grass and grass-clover leys

1

CR2

Cereal crops

1

CR3

Non-cereal crops including woody crops

1

CR31

Intensively managed orchards

1

CR32

Withy beds

1

CR33

Vineyards

2

CR34

Game crops

1

CR35

Miscanthus

0

CR3Z

Other non-cereal crops including woody crops

1

CR5

Whole field fallow

2

CR6

Arable headland or uncultivated strip

4

CR61

Arable field margins

4

CR6Z

Other arable headland or uncultivated strip

4

CRZ

Other arable and horticulture

0

CL1

Agriculture

1

CL11

Organic agriculture

1

CL12

Non-organic agriculture

0.5

CL2

Market garden and horticulture

0

CL21

Organic market garden and horticulture

0

CL22

Non-organic market garden and horticulture

0

CL3

Un-intensively managed orchards

1

CL31

Traditional orchards

1

CL32

Defunct orchards

1

CL3Z

Other un-intensively managed orchards

1

CL4

Intensively managed vineyards

0

CL4Z

Non-intensively managed vineyards

0

CL5

Cereal crops managed for wildlife

0.75

CL5Z

Cereal crops not managed for wildlife

0.25

RE0

Inland rock

0

Support the retention of existing hedgerows and tree lines linking areas of woodland. Encourage hedgerow improvement to become 3 to 6 metres wide, mean 3 metres high with frequent standard emergent trees (Ransaome, 1997)

Hedges used as perching sites (Duverge & Jones, 1994)

The vast majority (over 90%) of insects found near hedges do not originate in the hedge but come from other habitats brought in on the wind (BCT, 2003)

Hedges managed under agri-environment Schemes did not offer any benefit over conventionally managed hedgerows with regard to macro-moths (Fuentes-Montemayor et al, 2010)

Cut hedge is specified where height is below 2 metres

Uncut hedge is specified where the hedge is between 2 and 3 metres high

Overgrown hedge is considered to be over 3 metres high

RE1

Natural rock exposure features

0

RE11

Natural rock and scree habitats

0

RE112

Lowland natural rock and scree habitats

0

RE14

Caves

6

RE141

Caves not open to the public

NP

RE14Z

Other caves

5

RE15

Exposed river gravels and shingles

0

RE1Z

Other natural rock exposure feature

0

RE2

Artificial rock exposures and waste

1

RE21

Quarry

1

RE22

Spoil heap

0

RE23

Mine

5

RE24

Refuse tip

0

RE2Z

Other artificial rock exposure and waste

0

LF0

Boundary and linear features

6

LF1

Hedges / Line of trees

6

LF11

Hedgerows

6

LF111

Important hedgerows

6

LF11Z

Non-important hedgerows

6

LF12

Line of trees

4

LF1Z

Other hedges/line of trees

4

LF2

Other boundaries and linear features

3

LF21

Line of trees (not originally intended to be stock proof)

3

LF22

Bank

0

LF23

Wall

2

LF24

Dry ditch

1

LF25

Grass strip

0

LF26

Fence

1

LF27

Transport corridors

0

LF271

Transport corridor without associated verges

0

LF272

Transport corridor associated verges only

0

LF273

Transport corridor with natural land surface

0

LH1

Intact hedge

1

LH2

Defunct hedge

1

LH3

Recently planted hedge (Only use for existing habitat)

0.2

LM1

Cut hedge

0.3

LM11

Cut hedge with standards

0.3

LM12

Cut hedge without standards

0.2

LM2

Uncut hedge

0.9

LM21

Uncut hedge with standards

0.9

LM22

Uncut hedge without standards

0.8

LM3

Overgrown hedge

1

LM31

Overgrown hedge with standards

1

LM32

Overgrown hedge without standards

1

LT3

Rail-side

0.5

LT4

Road-side

0.5

LT5

Path- and track-side

1

LTZ

Other transport corridor verges, embankments and cuttings

0.5

UL1

Railway

0

UL2

Roadway

0

UL3

Path and trackway

0

ULZ

Other transport corridor

0

UR0

Built-up areas and gardens

1

UA1

Agricultural

0.1

UA2

Industrial/commercial

0

UA3

Domestic

0

UA31

Housing/domestic outbuildings

0

UA32

Gardens

0

UA33

Allotments

0

UA34

Caravan park

0

UA3Z

Other domestic

0

UA4

Public amenity

0

UA41

Churchyards and cemeteries

0.1

UA4Z

Other public amenity

0

UA5

Historical built environment

1

UAZ

Other extended built environment

0

 

 

[1] SERC, 34 Wellington Road, Taunton TA1 5AW Telephone: 01823 664450  Fax: 01823 652411

Appendix 3: Lesser Horseshoe Bat Habitat Suitability Index

Text Colour

Black = Habitat Codes

Blue = Matrix Codes

Green = Formation Codes

Red = Management Codes

NP = Not permissible. It is considered that the habitat is not

 

A complete list with full descriptions and parameters of the habitat labels can be obtained from Somerset Environmental Records Centre.

 

Code

Label

HSI

Notes

WB0

Broadleaved, mixed, and yew woodland

6

The primary foraging habitat for lesser horseshoe bats is broadleaf woodland where they often hunt high in the canopy. However, they will also forage along hedgerows, tree-lines and well-wooded riverbanks.’ (Schofield, 2008)

In lowlands broadleaved and mixed woodland is the most used habitat (Knight, 2006)

Avoids dense scrub cover (Schofield 2008), i.e. WB2

Lesser horseshoe bats are primarily a woodland feeding bat using deciduous woodland or mixed coniferous woodland and hedgerows. It has been found that habitats that were most important contained a high proportion of woodland, parkland and grazed pasture woodland, combined with linear features, such as overgrown hedgerows. Woodland with watercourses has more importance. Broadleaved woodland predominated over other types of woodland and was shown to be a key habitat for the species. In the core foraging areas used by bats woodland accounted for 58.7 ± 5.2% of the habitats present. (Barataud et al, 2000; Bontadina et al, 2002)

Non-native - biomass of fir trees is 16 compared to Ash 41 and Oak 284

Window gnats present

Juveniles select broadleaved woodland habitat (Knight, 2006)

Broadleaved, mixed middle age mature woodland with the presence of a river or pond on at least one side most favourable (Barataud et al, 2000)

In Bavaria foraged in all available forest types (semi natural mountainous beech-spruce-fir forests and more artificial spruce dominated forests except dense riparian forest. The large part of the time foraging time in forest of deciduous trees  (Fagus sylvatica) (Holzhaider et al, 2002)

A habitat index produced as a result of surveys carried out in four different habitats; plantation woodland; improved grassland, semi improved grassland and arable (root crops) produced the following index 1, 0.33, 0.2 and 0.05 for lesser horseshoe bat prey species abundance (Biron, 2007)

WB1

Mixed woodland

6

WB2

Scrub woodland

6

WB3

Broadleaved woodland

6

WB31

Upland oakwood [=Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles(AN1)]

NP

WB32

Upland mixed ashwoods

NP

WB321

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines [upland]

NP

WB32Z

Other upland mixed ashwoods

6

WB33

Beech and yew woodlands

4

WB331

Lowland beech and yew woodland

4

WB3311

Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion)

NP

WB3312

Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests

NP

WB3313

Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles

NP

WB331Z

Other lowland beech and yew woodland

4

WB33Z

Other beech and yew woodlands

4

WB34

Wet woodland

6

WB341

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

NP

WB342

Bog woodland

NP

WB34Z

Other wet woodland

6

WB35

Upland birch woodland

6

WB36

Lowland mixed deciduous woodland

6

WB361

Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains

NP

WB362

Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli

NP

WB363

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines [lowland]

NP

WB36Z

Other lowland mixed deciduous woodland

6

WB3Z

Other broadleaved woodland

6

WC0

Coniferous woodland

3

IH0

Introduced shrub

0

Known to make use of shrubs such as rhododendron (Robertson, 2002)

WF0

Unidentified woodland formation

1

There was very little difference recorded in the availability of prey in woodland in Switzerland. Variation is due to woodland formation and management (Bontadina et al, 2008)

WF1

Semi-natural

1

WF11

Native semi-natural

1

WF111

Canopy Cover >90%

0.2

WF112

Canopy Cover 75 - 90%

0.7

WF113

Canopy Cover 50 - 75%

1

WF114

Canopy Cover 20 - 50%

1

WF12

Non-native semi-natural

0.8

Determined by woodland habitat type

WF121

Canopy Cover >90%

0.2

The density of the taller trees (either deciduous or coniferous) must be low enough to allow development of understorey of shrub and small coppice. (Motte & Libois, 2002)

WF122

Canopy Cover 75 - 90%

0.7

WF123

Canopy Cover 50 - 75%

1

WF124

Canopy Cover 20 - 50%

1

WF2

Plantation

0.8

WF21

Native species plantation

0.8

Uniform stands of trees are poorer in invertebrates than more diversely structured woodland (Kirby, 1988)

WF22

Non-native species plantation

0.6

WF3

Mixed plantation and semi-natural

0.8

WF31

Mixed native species semi-natural with native species plantation

0.8

WF32

Mixed native species semi-natural with non-native species plantation

0.7

Used conifer planation at Ciliau but overall time in the habitat was small (Schofield et al, 2003)

WF33

Mixed non-native species semi-natural with native species plantation

0.7

WF34

Mixed non-native species semi-natural with non-native species plantation

0.6

Lesser horseshoe bats hunting and swerving  between branches of and in the foliage of coppice, at 1 to 4m high (Motte & Libois, 2002)

WM0

Undetermined woodland management

1

WM1

High forest

1

WM2

Coppice with standards

1

WM3

Pure coppice

1

WM4

Abandoned coppice

1

WM5

Wood-pasture and parkland

1

WM51

Currently managed wood pasture/parkland

1

WM52

Relic wood pasture/parkland

1

WM6

Pollarded woodland

1

WM7

Unmanaged woodland

1

WMZ

Other woodland management

1

WG0

Unidentified woodland clearing

1

WG1

Herbaceous woodland clearing

1

WG2

Recently felled/coppiced woodland clearing

0.5

Clear cutting must be avoided (Motte & Libouis, 2002)

WG3

Woodland ride

1

 

WG4

Recently planted trees

0.5

WGZ

Other woodland clearings/openings

1

GA0

Acid grassland

3

The majority of foraging areas around Glynllifon are associated with semi improved pasture bounded by hedgerows and scrub (Billington & Rawlinson, 2006)

The vast majority (over 90%) of insects found near hedges do not originate in the hedge but come from other habitats brought in on the wind (BCT, 2003)

The Integrated Habitat System considers scrub as a matrix habitat when less than 0.25ha. Otherwise use WB2

Avoids dense scrub cover (Schofield 2008)

GC0

Calcareous grassland

3

GN0

Neutral grassland

3

GN1

Lowland meadows

3

GI0

Improved grassland

2

GU0

Grassland, semi improved

3

SC1

Dense/continuous scrub

-3

SC11

Dense/continuous scrub: native shrubs

-3

SC12

Dense/continuous scrub: introduced shrubs

-3

SC2

Open/scattered scrub

1

SC21

Open/scattered scrub: native shrubs

1

SC22

Open/scattered scrub: introduced shrubs

1

TS0

Scattered trees

1

TS1

Scattered trees some veteran

1

Presence of scattered trees in grassland/arable is likely to increase opportunity for foraging and increase insect diversity/biomass. Parkland habitats have been noted for lesser horseshoe bat foraging. There are a high number of Tipulid species in this habitat

TS11

Broadleaved

1

TS12

Mixed

1

TS13

Coniferous

0

TS2

Scattered trees none veteran

0

TS21

Broadleaved

0

TS22

Mixed

0

TS23

Coniferous

0

PA0

Patchy bracken

0

OT0

Tall herb and fern (excluding bracken)

0.25

Area of bare ground is not specified - assumed patchy

OT3

Tall ruderal

0.25

OT4

Non-ruderal

0.25

OT41

Lemon-scented fern and Hard-fern vegetation (NVC U19)

0.25

OT4Z

Other non-ruderal tall herb and fern

0.25

OTZ

Other tall herb and fern

0.25

HS0

Ephemeral/short perennial herb

0

BG1

Bare ground

0

GM0

Undetermined grassland etc. management

1

The presence of cattle is a factor in access to foraging (Cresswell Associates, 2004). Dung flies have been shown to be an element of the diet but less so at Hestercombe House (Knight, 2008). Scatophagidae are a key element of their diet, and together with Sphaeroceridae, are frequently associated with dung (Knight, 2006)

The presence of pasture is indispensable to the larval stage of development for certain species (Tipulids), which form a significant part of lesser horseshoe bat diet (Motte & Libois, 2002; Boye & Dietz, 2005).

Possibility of presence of window gnats but heavily managed or lit. Need to have associated matrix codes TS

Possibility of presence of window gnats but heavily managed or lit. Need to have associated matrix codes TS

GM1

Grazed

1

GM11

Cattle grazed

1

GM12

Sheep grazed

0.75

GM13

Horse grazed

0.8

GM14

Mixed grazing

0.8

GM1Z

Other grazing

0.75

GM2

Mown

0.5

GM21

Silage

0.1

GM22

Hay

0.6

GM23

Frequent mowing

0.25

GM2Z

Other mowing regime

0.25

GM3

Hay and aftermath grazing

0.8

GM4

Unmanaged

1

 

GM5

Burning/swaling

0

GMZ

Other grassland etc. management

0.5

GL1

Amenity grassland

0.1

GL11

Golf course

0.1

GL12

Urban parks, playing and sports fields

0.1

GL1Z

Other amenity grassland

0.1

GL2

Non-amenity grassland

1

GL21

Permanent agricultural grassland

1

GL211

Arable reversion grassland

1

GL2111

Species-rich conservation grassland

1

GL211Z

Other arable reversion grassland

1

GL21Z

Other permanent agricultural grassland

1

GL2Z

Other grassland use

0.25

CL3

Unintensively managed orchards

1

CL31

Traditional orchards

1

CL32

Defunct orchards

1

CL3Z

Other unintensively managed orchards

1

CF1

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh

1

BR0

Bracken

2

HE0

Dwarf shrub heath

2

Bracken cover hosts over 40 species of invertebrates.

Bracken and heath are used by lesser horseshoe bats in upland areas (Knight, 2006)

HE1

European dry heaths

2

HE2

Wet heaths

1

EO0

Bog

NP

EM0

Fen, marsh and swamp

3

Bog habitats are avoided by lesser horseshoe bats (Irish Bats)

EM1

Swamp

1

EM11

Reedbeds

1

Fen was intensively used in Bavaria where groups of trees are present (Holzhaider et al, 2002)

Fen was intensively used in Bavaria where groups of trees are present (Holzhaider et al, 2002)

Culicidae were more abundant in the Hestercombe House diet compared with previous studies in Britain (8% compared with 1%) suggesting that the colony is utilising standing water sources and adjacent areas for foraging. Caddis flies supply 5% of diet. Mayflies less than 5%. Midge larvae are small and wormlike and develop in lakes, ponds, slow-moving streams, drainage ditches, and wet mud and even in highly polluted sewage water.

EM12

Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Carex davallianae

NP

EM1Z

Other swamp vegetation

1

EM2

Marginal and inundation vegetation

2

EM21

Marginal vegetation

2

EM22

Inundation vegetation

0

EM3

Fens

3

EM31

Fens [and flushes - lowland]

3

EM311

Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Carex davallianae

NP

EM312

Springs

2

EM313

Alkaline fens [lowland]

2

EM314

Transition mires and quaking bogs [lowland]

2

EM31Z

Other lowland fens

3

EM3Z

Other fens, transition mires, springs and flushes

1

EM4

Purple moor grass and rush pastures [Molinia-Juncus]

2

EM41

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils [Molinia caeruleae]

NP

EM42

Non-Annex 1 Molinia meadow and rush pasture habitats (SWT)

2

EM421

Species-rich rush pastures (SWT)

2

EM422

Non-Annex 1 Molinia meadows (SWT)

2

EM4Z

Other purple moor grass and rush pastures [Molinia-Juncus]

2

AS0

Standing open water and canals

6

AS1

Dystrophic standing water

3

In Ireland activity as found to be greater around expanses of water than along roadside hedgerows. Foraging was concentrated around tree lined rivers and ponds (McAney & Fairley, 1988)

The larvae of freshwater species usually live in cold clean flowing waters, but some species prefer warmer slower waters. They are very particular about water temperature and speed, dissolved minerals and pollutants, as http://animals.jrank.org/pages/2512/Caddisflies-Trichoptera.html#ixzz14E3GO5ZH

An increase in the number of chironomids results from eutrophication. Daubenton's feed downstream of sewage outputs  (Racey, 1998) Adults generally fly quickly from the water. Mating takes place on the ground or vegetation. Adults are commonly found near lights at night or on foliage near water .http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/cimg245.html

The larvae of freshwater species usually live in cold clean flowing waters, but some species prefer warmer slower waters. They are very particular about water temperature and speed, dissolved minerals and pollutants, as http://animals.jrank.org/pages/2512/Caddisflies-Trichoptera.html#ixzz14E3GO5ZH

AS11

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds

1

AS1Z

Other dystrophic standing water

3

AS2

Oligotrophic standing waters

4

AS21

Oligotrophic lakes

1

AS2Z

Other oligotrophic standing waters

4

AS3

Mesotrophic standing waters

5

AS31

Mesotrophic lakes

2

AS3Z

Other mesotrophic standing waters

5

AS4

Eutrophic standing waters

6

AS41

Eutrophic standing waters

5

AS4Z

Other eutrophic standing waters

6

AS5

Marl standing water

1

AS6

Brackish standing water with no sea connection

3

AS7

Aquifer fed naturally fluctuating water bodies

4

ASZ

Other standing open water and canals

6

AC0

Channel of unknown origin

1

AC1

Artificial channels

1

AC11

Drains, rhynes and ditches

1

AC111

Species-rich drains, rhynes and ditches

1

Lesser horseshoe bats are likely to use ditch and rhyne systems for foraging (greater horseshoe bats have been radio tracked doing so [Jones & Billington, 1999]. It is considered that a large roost at Theale, near Wedmore, is supported thus due to lack of woodland and hedgerow connectivity otherwise but needs to be supported by radio tracking and /or other surveys in the future.

Watercourses are the most used habitat in uplands (Trichoptera in diet) (Knight, 2006)

AC11Z

Other drains, rhynes and ditches

1

AC12

Artificially modified channels

1

AC13

New artificial channels

0.1

AC14

Canals

0.3

AC1Z

Other artificial channels

0.3

AC2

Natural/naturalistic channels

1

AO0

Open water of unknown origin

1

AO1

Artificial open water

0.75

AO11

Reservoir

1

AO12

Gravel pits, quarry pools, mine pools and marl pits

1

AO13

Industrial lagoon

0.2

AO14

Scrape

1

AO15

Moat

1

AO16

Ornamental

0.75

AO1Z

Other artificial open water

0.75

AO2

Natural open water

1

AP1

Pond

1

AP11

Ponds of high ecological quality

1

AP1Z

Other pond

1

AP2

Small lake

1

AP3

Large lake

0.5

LT1

Canal-side

1

LT11

Canal-side with woodland

1

LT12

Canal-side with scrub or hedgerow and standard trees

1

LT13

Canal-side with scrub or hedgerow 

1

LT14

Canal-side with layered vegetation

0.75

LT15

Canal-side with grassland

0.5

LT16

Canal-side with damaged banks

0

LT17

Canal-side with constructed banks

0

LT18

Other canal-side type

0

AR0

Rivers and streams

5

AR1

Headwaters

5

Watercourses are the most used habitat in uplands (Trichoptera in diet) (Knight, 2006)

Broadleaved, mixed middle age mature woodland with the presence of a river or pond on at least one side most favoured habitat by lesser horseshoe bats (Barataud et al, 2000)

AR11

Chalk headwaters

5

AR12

Active shingle rivers [headwaters]

5

AR1Z

Other headwaters

5

AR2

Chalk rivers (not including chalk headwaters)

4

AR3

Active shingle rivers [non headwaters]

5

ARZ

Other rivers and streams

4

LT2

River-side

1

LT21

River-side with woodland

1

LT22

River-side with scrub or hedgerow and standard trees

1

LT23

River-side with scrub or hedgerow 

1

LT24

River-side with layered vegetation

0.75

LT25

River-side with grassland

0.5

LT26

River-sdie with vertical banks

0.5

LT27

River-side with damaged banks

0

LT28

River-side with constructed banks

0

LT29

Other river-side type

0

CR0

Arable and horticulture

1

Miscanthus is not palatable to most insects. This is likely to include those species preyed upon by lesser horseshoe bats

CR1

Grass and grass-clover leys

1

CR2

Cereal crops

1

CR3

Non-cereal crops including woody crops

1

CR31

Intensively managed orchards

1

CR32

Withy beds

1

CR33

Vineyards

1

CR34

Game crops

2

CR35

Miscanthus

0

CR3Z

Other non-cereal crops including woody crops

1

CR5

Whole field fallow

2

CR6

Arable headland or uncultivated strip

3

CR61

Arable field margins

3

CR6Z

Other arable headland or uncultivated strip

2

CRZ

Other arable and horticulture

1

CL1

Agriculture

1

CL11

Organic agriculture

1

CL12

Non-organic agriculture

0.5

It has been shown that organic farms are more heavily used by bats than otherwise (Wickramasinghe et al, 2003).

CL2

Market garden and horticulture

0

CL21

Organic market garden and horticulture

0

CL22

Non-organic market garden and horticulture

0

.

CL4

Intensively managed vineyards

0

CL4Z

Non-intensively managed vineyards

1

CL5

Cereal crops managed for wildlife

1

CL5Z

Cereal crops not managed for wildlife

0.5

RE0

Inland rock

0

RE1

Natural rock exposure features

0

RE11

Natural rock and scree habitats

0

RE111

Upland natural rock and scree habitats

0

RE112

Lowland natural rock and scree habitats

0

RE14

Caves

NP

RE141

Caves not open to the public

NP

Winter roost sites.

Caves occur in disused quarries in Somerset

RE14Z

Other caves

5

RE15

Exposed river gravels and shingles

2

RE1Z

Other natural rock exposure feature

0

RE2

Artificial rock exposures and waste

0

RE21

Quarry

2

RE22

Spoil heap

0

RE23

Mine

3

RE24

Refuse tip

0

RE2Z

Other artificial rock exposure and waste

0

In a report for the three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire County Council and the Countryside Commission for Wales by the Bat Conservation Trust (2005) it is stated that in fragmented habitats linear features, such as hedgerows, provided valuable corridors between roosts and foraging areas. Commuting corridors are important features for lesser horseshoe bats as they avoid crossing open areas and are vulnerable to the loss of these corridors. Where lesser horseshoes bats foraged along linear features, such as hedgerows, it was always within 10 metres of the feature (Bat Conservation Trust, 2005). In Belgium no bat was recorded more than 1 metre from a feature (Motte & Dubois, 2002).

Linking features in a landscape of fragmented woodlands are highly important to the survival of lesser horseshoe bats. Motte & Dubois (2002) in their study wrote that, ‘What is striking is that all places were linked to the roost and to each other by a wooded element.’

The vast majority (over 90%) of insects found near hedges do not originate in the hedge but come from other habitats brought in on the wind (BCT, 2003)

Hedges managed under Agri-environment Schemes did not offer any benefit over conventionally managed hedgerows with regard to micro and macro-moths (Fuentes-Montemayor et al, 2010)

Cut hedge is specified where height is below 2 metres

Uncut hedge is specified where the hedge is between 2 and 3 metres high

Overgrown hedge is considered to be over 3 metres high

LF0

Boundary and linear features

6

LF1

Hedges / Line of trees

6

LF11

Hedgerows

6

LF111

Important hedgerows

6

LF11Z

Non-important hedgerows

6

LF12

Line of trees

6

LF1Z

Other hedges/line of trees

6

LF2

Other boundaries and linear features

4

LF21

Line of trees (not originally intended to be stock proof)

4

LF22

Bank

0

LF23

Wall

1

LF24

Dry ditch

1

LF25

Grass strip

0

LF26

Fence

0

LF27

Transport corridors

0

LF271

Transport corridor without associated verges

0

LF272

Transport corridor associated verges only

0

LF273

Transport corridor with natural land surface

0

LH1

Intact hedge

1

LH2

Defunct hedge

1

LH3

Recently planted hedge (Only use for existing habitat)

0.25

LM1

Cut hedge

0.3

LM11

Cut hedge with standards

0.3

LM12

Cut hedge without standards

0.2

LM2

Uncut hedge

0.9

LM21

Uncut hedge with standards

0.9

LM22

Uncut hedge without standards

0.8

LM3

Overgrown hedge

1

LM31

Overgrown hedge with standards

1

LM32

Overgrown hedge without standards

1

LT3

Rail-side

0.5

LT4

Road-side

0.5

LT5

Path- and track-side

1

LTZ

Other transport corridor verges, embankments and cuttings

1

UL1

Railway

0

UL2

Roadway

0

UL3

Path and trackway

0

ULZ

Other transport corridor

0

UR0

Built-up areas and gardens

1

UA1

Agricultural

0.1

UA2

Industrial/commercial

0

Lesser horseshoe bat summer roosts are typically in the loft spaces of old buildings

Urban and sub urban areas are exploited by lesser horseshoe bats (Knight, 2006) but it is assumed that these are small unlit villages

Farmyards most used by lesser horseshoe in Ireland (McAney & Fairley, 1988). Night roosts possible

UA3

Domestic

0

UA31

Housing/domestic outbuildings

0.1

UA32

Gardens

0.1

UA33

Allotments

0.1

UA34

Caravan park

0

UA3Z

Other domestic

0

UA4

Public amenity

0

UA41

Churchyards and cemeteries

1

UA4Z

Other public amenity

0

UA5

Historical built environment

1

UAZ

Other extended built environment

0

 

 

 

Appendix 4: Risk Factors for Restoring or Recreating Different Habitats

N.B.: These assignments are meant purely as an indicative guide. The starting position with regard to substrate, nutrient levels, state of existing habitat, etc. will have a major impact in the actual risk factor. Final assessments of risk may need to take other factors into account.

Habitats

Technical difficulty of recreating

Technical difficulty of restoration

Arable Field Margins

Low

n/a

Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh

Low

Low

Eutrophic Standing Waters

Medium

Medium

Hedgerows

Low

Low

Lowland Beech and Yew Woodland

Medium

Low

Lowland Calcareous Grassland

Medium

Low

Lowland Dry Acid Grassland

Medium

Low

Lowland Meadows

Medium

Low

Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland

Medium

Low

Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land

Low

Low

Ponds

Low

Low

Wood‐Pasture & Parkland

Medium

Low

 

Appendix 5: Feasibility and Timescales of Restoring: examples from Europe

 

 

 

Appendix 6: Example of HEP Calculation

The following table gives an example (for Lesser Horseshoe bats) of the HEP calculation for a complex site which straddles two Consideration Zone bands.

Field No

Habitat

Primary Habitat

Matrix

Formation

Management / Land use

HSI Score

Density Band Score

Hectares

Habitat Units

IHS Code

Score

IHS Code

Score

IHS Code

Score

IHS Code

Score

F1

Miscanthus

CR35

0

 

0

 

1.00

 

1.00

0.00

2

4.975

0.00

P2

Pond

AS0

6

 

0

AP1

1.00

 

1.00

6.00

2

0.053

0.64

F3

Maize (Cereal crops, non-organic)

CR2

1

 

0

 

1.00

CL12

0.50

0.50

2

0.034

0.03

P4

Pond (Standing open water and canals)

AS0

6

 

0

 

1.00

 

1.00

6.00

2

0.362

4.34

F5

Improved grassland, Frequent mowing (Other amenity)

GI0

2

 

0

 

1.00

GM23

0.25

0.50

2

0.344

0.34

F6

Mixed woodland, Mixed plantation and semi natural, high forest

WB1

6

 

0

WF3

0.80

WM1

1.00

4.80

2

0.362

3.48

F7

Built-up Areas and Gardens, gardens

UR0

1

 

0

 

1.00

UA32

0.10

0.10

2

0.2

0.04

F8

Arable (wheat & barley)

CR2

1

 

0

 

1.00

CL12

0.50

0.50

2

0.086

0.09

F9

Arable (type not stated)

CR0

1

 

0

 

1.00

 

1.00

1.00

2

0.154

0.31

F10

Improved grassland; Hay aftermath grazing

GI0

2

 

0

 

1.00

GM3

0.80

1.60

2

3.484

11.15

F11

Improved grassland, Silage

GI0

2

 

0

 

1.00

GM21

0.50

1.00

2

0.833

1.67

F12

Built-up Areas and Gardens, scattered trees

UR0

1

TS0

1

 

1.00

UA32

0.25

0.50

1

2.844

1.42

F13

Mixed Woodland Plantation

WB1

6

 

0

WF3

0.80

 

1.00

4.80

1

1.214

5.83

F14

Cereal Crops, Bare Ground

CR2

1

BG1

0

 

1.00

CL1

1.00

1.00

1

0.642

0.64

H1

Hedgerow, overgrown without standards

LF11

6

 

0

 

1.00

LM32

1.00

6.00

2

0.149

1.79

H2

Hedgerow, cut without standards

LF11

6

 

0

 

1.00

LM12

0.20

1.20

2

0.58

1.39

H3

Line of trees

LF21

4

 

0

 

1.00

 

1.00

4.00

2

0.203

1.62

H4

Hedgerow, uncut without standards

LF11

6

 

0

 

1.00

LM22

0.80

4.80

2

0.04

0.38

H5

Hedgerow, uncut with standards

LF11

6

 

0

 

1.00

LM21

0.90

5.40

2

0.02

0.22

H6

Hedgerow, cut without standards

LF11

6

 

0

 

1.00

LM12

0.20

1.20

2

0.07

0.17

H7

Hedgerow, uncut without standards

LF11

6

 

0

 

1.00

LM22

0.80

4.80

1

0.02

0.10

H8

Hedgerow, cut without standards

LF11

6

 

0

 

1.00

LM12

0.20

1.20

1

0.01

0.01

                         

35.65

   

(Habitat required, e.g. Woodland with ponds being optimal habitat for the species) 

Delivery Risk

1.5

   

(Habitat required, e.g. Woodland with ponds being optimal habitat for the species) 

Temporal Risk

1.7

                     

Habitat Units

90.92

                     

Hectares Required

5.05

                                   

The calculation recommends that a minimum of 5.05 hectares (ha) of the 16.68ha site is needed to replace the value of the habitat lost to the species affected. 

If the replacement habitat is to be provided off-site the value of the receptor site also needs to be taken into account. The calculation is as follows assuming that the replacement habitat enhancement is located on a field of low value to the species with a HSI score of 1.

 

[5.05 / (6-1)] + 5.05 = 6.06ha.


 

 

Appendix 7: ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ and Lesser Horseshoe Bats

The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’) under Article 1 set out the requirements for the protection of species of Community interest, listed under Annex II, IV and/or V[1]. These species are required to be maintained at ‘favourable conservation status’ (FCS), which is defined as when:

  • the population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and
  • the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and
  • there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

The goals of the Habitats Directive for species conservation require two basic conditions[2]:

  • Quality of habitat (allowing enough for reproduction)
  • Habitat area (to prevent extinction by accident)

 

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations state under Regulation 41 that it is an offence to deliberately disturb wild animals of a European Protected Species (EPS), such as Lesser Horseshoe bats, in such a way as to be likely to:

  1. a) impair their ability—

(i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or

(ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or

 (b) affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

Regulation 9(5) requires that all public bodies have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive when carrying out their functions. Recent court cases (Regina versus Cheshire East Borough Council and Morge V Hampshire County Council) and a Supreme Court judgement have ‘… confirmed that the judgement is one for the relevant decision maker to make (e.g. the local planning authority) based on all the facts of the case.’[3]

It is the local planning authority’s responsibility to ensure that the FCS of local populations of EPS is maintained, aside from any subsequent licensing requirement. Before granting planning permission to a development the local authority needs to ensure that the proposed development is not detrimental to the affected population of Lesser Horseshoe bats’ FCS, i.e. that there are no adverse effects on the habitat to support and hence abundance of  the local population from the proposed development. The Council must be satisfied that each of the three tests for EPS is met which besides FCS includes statements concerning whether ‘the development is of overriding public interest’ and whether ‘there are no satisfactory alternatives. These should be reported in the officer’s report to the planning committee.

However, this should not be seen as a requirement of every development where EPS are present but, as the Supreme Court makes clear, should be judged on a case by case, species by species basis. Penny Simpson (2011)[4] writes that “‘deliberate disturbance’ offence is likely to apply to an activity which is likely to negatively impact on the demography (survival and breeding) of the species at the local population level… disturbing one of two individuals is not necessarily below the threshold ( i.e. outside the offence) because for a rare species, a species in decline, or a species at the edge of its range, a harmful disturbing impact on a very small number of individuals may impact negatively on the demography of the local population”.

Ideally the forward planning process, such as consideration of development sites for allocation, should be informed by a sound knowledge of the distribution of EPS within a geographic area. Awareness of the maps in this guidance would help towards that, regarding horseshoe bats. This would help local authorities to exercise their functions in line with the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, Regulations 9 (1) and 9(3). It would also help the local authorities meet Article 16 of the Habitats Directive, since consideration of the maps in the allocation process could potentially help to avoid adverse impacts on horseshoe bats in the first place, although it is recognised that this is not always possible due to other factors such as the need for transport infrastructure. 

Plans 5 and 6 below show the distribution of known Lesser Horseshoe bats in North Somerset, Sedgemoor and Mendip council areas


 

[1] Annex IV species are defined as ‘animal and plant species in need of strict protection.’ Annex II species are those for whose conservation require the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). Any potential impacts affecting the integrity of a SAC, including those designated for Annex II species, are required to undergo a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’. Annex IV species are listed on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and includes Lesser Horseshoe bats. Annex V species are ‘Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures’ which are likewise required to be maintained at ‘Favourable Conservation Status’.

[2] Opdam, P., Steingröver, E., Vos, C. & Prins, D. 2002. Effective protection of the Annex IV species of the EU-Habitats Directive: The landscape approach. Wageningen: Alterra. http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/ecorete/590.pdf

[3] Simpson, P. 2011.Supreme Court rules on Habitats Directive. DLA Piper, UK

[4] Simpson, P. 2011.Supreme Court rules on Habitats Directive. DLA Piper, UK

Plan 5: Lesser Horseshoe Bats (North Somerset)

Plan 6: Lesser Horseshoe Bats (Sedgemoor and Mendip)