Biodiversity Data Journal 11: e98734 OO) doi: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e98734 open access Research Article Important underground roosts for bats in Bulgaria: current state and priorities for conservation Stanimira Deleva*'$, Nia ToshkovaS'!, Maksim Kolev§, Krizler Cejuela Tanalgo! + Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica § National Museum of Natural History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria | Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria 4] Ecology and Conservation Research Laboratory (Eco/Con Lab), Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science and Mathematics, University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan, Philippines Corresponding author: Stanimira Deleva (stanimira.deleva@gmail.com) Academic editor: Miguel Camacho Sanchez Received: 12 Dec 2022 | Accepted: 20 Jan 2023 | Published: 25 Jan 2023 Citation: Deleva S, Toshkova N, Kolev M, Tanalgo KC (2023) Important underground roosts for bats in Bulgaria: current state and priorities for conservation. Biodiversity Data Journal 11: e98734. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.11.e€98734 Abstract Bulgaria has a very rich bat fauna and large colonies of bats can be found in caves, mines and other underground roosts. Respectively, there are more than 107 underground roosts that are listed as important bat sites, most of which are protected by statutory laws and are of national or international importance. Despite the existence of formal protection, many roosts face anthropogenic disturbances due to the popularity of outdoor activities, such as caving and the lack of actual regulation. Currently, the evaluation was only based on the size of the colony and the presence of protected species. However, this approach is limited to roosts that contain high diversity and neglects the ones that contain high biotic importance that are highly threatened by various threats. Here, we evaluated conservation priorities and identified the most vulnerable underground bat roosts in Bulgaria, using the Bat Cave Vulnerability Index and proposed measures to adequately protect sites. We found that 32% of the Bulgarian bat roosts assessed are at a “high priority" level for conservation and protection, while 39% are at a "medium priority" that may require constant monitoring. This novel and integrative approach applied to bat roost prioritisation in the country enabled the detection of sites that need urgent conservation attention and is the first step in establishing better strategies for the bat monitoring network in Bulgaria. © Deleva S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 2 Deleva S et al Keywords bats, Bulgaria, caves, conservation, priorities, vulnerability, BCVI, artificial roosts, mines Introduction With more than 6000 caves (Bulgarian Federation of Speleology 2022) , large areas of well-preserved natural habitats, an abundance of abandoned structures and a mild climate, Bulgaria is a suitable place for bats. Of the 47 species inhabiting Europe (IUCN 2022b), 33 are recorded in the country (Benda et al. 2003, Schunger et al. 2004, Niermann et al. 2007, Popov and Lakovski 2019, IUCN 2022a). All bat species in Bulgaria are protected by law (Republic of Bulgaria 2022). All of the 12 species listed as a priority for conservation by the Habitats Directive inhabit caves, 10 of them being considered cave-dwelling and two species are using caves during periods of swarming and hibernation (EU 1992, Ivanova 2005). Considering the enormous diversity of bats and the numerous underground roosts in the country, priority for monitoring and conserving is given to a limited number of sites that are listed as Important Bat Underground Habitats (Ivanova 2005). The important bat underground roosts in Bulgaria were first classified by Ivanova (2005). The criteria initially used were according to the guidelines for the selection of Biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) of the Nature Conservation Council in Great Britain: “4 or more species and 50 or more individuals; 3 or more species and 100 or more individuals; 2 or more species and 150 or more individuals” (Walsh et al. 2019). The previous list has included 92 underground roosts, with some of the underground roosts sheltering significant diversity of bats with regional, national or international importance (lvanova 2005, EUROBATS 2022). The list includes caves and artificial roosts - buildings, bunkers and mines. This list was gradually updated and now consists of 107 sites, most of which are subject to regular monitoring according to the National Biodiversity Monitoring System at the Ministry of Environment and Waters of Bulgaria (Petrov 2015a, Petrov 2015b, MOEW 2022c, Toshkova and Deleva 2022). Although most of the important bat roosts are included in some form of a protected area, not all are specifically protected (e.g. the establishment of physical protection) due to the presence of important and vulnerable bat colonies in the cave site. For example, some roosts are considered natural landmarks or archaeological sites and, hence, the restrictions represent their cultural or aesthetic importance and do not necessarily consider the conservation of the biodiversity present. In addition to caves and mines, the important bat roosts in Bulgaria include several buildings and structures with environmental conditions, suitable for cave-dwelling bats, i.e. overground bat sites. Although the presence of protected bat species should guarantee the preservation of every roost (Republic of Bulgaria 2022), the conservation state of buildings, particularly those structures which are abandoned, is often uncertain. In some cases, this leaves some bat roosts more vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures than others. Bat populations in Bulgaria are threatened by continuous habitat loss, pollution, climate change, wind turbines and disturbance and are particularly vulnerable in their roosts (Popov 2018). The existing protection of important underground roosts considers only the Important underground roosts for bats in Bulgaria: current state and priorities ... 3 diversity and abundance of bats, but their susceptibility to threats and human pressures are widely neglected. In this way, there are some roosts that are mismatched with protection and persistently threatened due to their high accessibility and popularity amongst cave visitors. Other roosts, located in remote areas, are equipped with gates and signboards despite being only visited sporadically by speleologists and researchers (SFN 2020). Although often inhabited by large bat colonies, artificial roosts, such as abandoned buildings, bunkers or mines, are overlooked during conservation planning. Therefore, there is a need to establish urgent and more practical protection measures for the most vulnerable underground roosts to ensure the preservation of bat populations and their ecosystem services in the country. The Bat Cave Vulnerability Index (Tanalgo et al. 2018) is a practical tool to identify the most vulnerable caves and set priorities for future conservation. The Index integrates several important factors, such as species diversity, presence of rare species, size of colonies and morphological characteristics of caves and their approach. It was already successfully applied in several countries and artificial roosts (Deleva and Chaverri 2018, Tanalgo et al. 2022b). In this study, we applied this approach to determine the levels of conservation priorities for bat roosts in Bulgaria and to guide our focus on sites that require additional protection and urgent conservation actions. We have proposed key conservation actions for each roost, in accordance with the Conservation Evidence Initiative (Berthinussen et al. 2021). Consequently, we hope that this work would be relevant to developing effective policy-making related to the protection and conservation of important bat roosts in Bulgaria. Material and methods The study was carried out on underground roosts and overground structures with large bat colonies located in the Republic of Bulgaria (Fig. 1). We built a dataset that includes all important underground bat roosts, following Ivanova (2005) (Suppl. material 1). Our sources are from the period between 2003 and 2022, with most of the data obtained before 2017. We obtained data for the distribution of each bat species amongst roosts and the location of each roost from the available literature, such as published research articles (Benda et al. 2003, lvanova 2005), official monitoring reports (Petrov 2010, Petrov 2015a, Toshkova and Deleva 2022), the database of the Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria available at the website of the Ministry of Environment and Waters, i.e. MOEW (2022a) and the national database of the National Biodiversity Monitoring System (available upon request at MOEW (2022c)). We checked the conservation state of each roost using the information on protected areas of Bulgaria (MOEW 2022b). We checked if a roost is located within one or more protected areas using the spatial data provided by the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MOEW 2022d). When a roost was located in overlapping protected areas, for example - a Natural landmark and a Natura 2000 zone, we took into account the higher level of protection or the one with restrictions on visits. 4 Deleva S et al 22°57'E 23°48'E 24°39'E 25°30'E 26°21'E 27°1ZE 28°3'E 44°6'N 44°6'N 43°12'N 43°12'N 42°18'N 42°18'N Bat Caves @ summer O winter oO winter/summer (__] National Protected Areas [) Natura 2000 Habitat Directives 41°24N T 41°24'N 22°57'E 23°48'E 24°39'E 25°30'E 26°21'E 27°12E 28°3'E Figure 1. EES] Important bat underground roosts and protected areas in Bulgaria. Assessing conservation priority using BCVI We assessed cave priorities using the Bat Cave Vulnerability Index (BCVI) (see Tanalgo et al. (2018) for a complete prioritisation scheme). The index is composed of two components: Biotic Potential (BP) and Biotic Vulnerability (BV). The Biotic Potential (BP) takes into account the bat roost species richness, abundance, relative abundance, endemism and conservation status. We report the abundance of each species as the maximum number of individuals observed at each roost. The Biotic Vulnerability (BV) assesses the characteristics of the cave landscape feature and threats, such as cave morphology, visitation and land use in the surrounding areas. As the Index was originally developed for tropical caves, we adapted new criteria to assess the Biotic Vulnerability (BV) score that is contextualised in the Bulgarian environment. For example, in Bulgaria, cave temples are rare, but some of our caves shelter industrial structures, such as dairy farms, places to grow mushrooms, fuel repositories and wine cellars (Bulgarian Federation of Speleology 2022). We consequently changed the category from “temples” to “temples and structures” and included the following categories: 4 = no structures are present, 3 = old and abandoned structures are present, 2 = structures may be present, but rarely used (e.g. water-capturing structures, that are maintained several times a year), 1 = functioning and frequently-used structures (e.g. operating dairies, mushroom gardens, temples, wine cellars etc.) are present. The BP Index has a value between 1 and 4, with 1 being the highest level of priority. The BV Index has values of A, B, C and D, with A being the most Important underground roosts for bats in Bulgaria: current state and priorities ... 5 vulnerable to disturbances. The sub-indices (BP and BV) are integrated to obtain the BCVI status and determine the overall priority of the caves. We used the latest IUCN Red List (version 2022-1) for the assessment of each species’ global conservation and endemism status. In addition to the BCVI, we present new data on the importance status of each roost, following the methodology used in Bulgaria up to now, described by Ivanova (2005). The categories of importance are based on the presence of the total number of individuals and the number of species in each roost: Regional (25 to 100 individuals of 2 4 species), National (100 to 500 individuals of 2 3 species or 500 to 1000 individuals of 2 2 species) and International (1000 or more individuals of 2 2 species). We did all calculations in Excel 2021 for Windows (Microsoft corporation 2021). We mapped caves and their conservation status using the software QGIS v. 3.26 (QGIS 2022) and visualised data using R Studio (R Studio Team 2021). Assessing suitable conservation actions In addition to the Vulnerability Index, we assessed the condition and existing potential threats to each roost, based on the physical signs present, for example, collapsed entrances, household waste, graffiti and broken infrastructure (Petrov 2015b). We used the latest monitoring reports and the database of the National Museum of Natural History as a source of information (Petrov 2010, Petrov 2015a, Toshkova and Deleva 2022). We conducted an intensive literature search to effectively develop and propose appropriate conservation actions for each specific site. We used the available data from the Conservation Evidence initiative (Berthinussen et al. 2021) and considered the general assessment of each conservation action, the individual study used in its evaluation in combination with all the guidelines and recommendations provided by the Eurobats working groups. Then we measured their relevance for our specific cases and species. We selected only effective bat conservation actions with high-quality evidence and no undesirable effects. Results All the 33 bat species and six species complex groups found in Bulgaria were evaluated for all underground sites. According to the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2022a), the majority of the species are considered as Least Concern (n = 27),and six are Near Threatened (n = 6). There are three (3) species under the threatened category (Vulnerable) and a single data- deficient species. The Bulgarian Red Data Book (Golemanski et al. 2015) lists as Least Concern 11 species, as Near Threatened four species, 10 species are listed as Vulnerable, two species are data-deficient and six species do not have an assigned category. The most common species include Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, which occurs in at least 89% (n = 96 sites) of cave sites, followed by Rhinolophus hipposideros (73%, n = 75 sites) and Miniopterus schreibersii (70%, n = 75 sites). Several species were not observed in underground roosts or were very rare as they are not considered cave-dwelling (n = 7). We present the species of bats, their conservation status and distrubuition in roosts in Table 1. 6 Deleva S et al Table 1. Cave-dwelling bats recorded in Bulgaria, their roost distribution and conservation status. The cave- dwelling species are marked with *. No of caves: the number of roosts from the current dataset in which the species is observed. Relative occurrence: the relative occurrence of the bat species in all caves assessed in the study. IUCN: Conservation status according to IUCN Red List (Global). BG Red List: Conservation status, according to the Bulgarian Red Data Book (Golemanski et al. 2015). BBA: Appendices of the Bulgarian Biodiversity Act. 92/43 EEC: Appendices of the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. BERN: Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. BON: Appendices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. EUROBATS: the species is listed in the EUROBATS agreement for the conservation of the populations of the European bats. Code Species No of _ Relative IUCN BG BBA 92/43 BERN BON EUROBATS caves occurrence Red EEC Book Rhifer Rhinolophus 96 89.72 LC NT 2,3 2,4 lI I + ferrumequinum* Rhihip Rhinolophus 78 72.897 LC LC 2,3 2,4 lI lI + hipposideros* Minsch Miniopterus 75 70.093 NT VU 2,3 2,4 ll HT] + schreibersii* Rhieur Rhinolophus 74 69.159 NT VU 2,3 2,4 lI lI + euryale Myomyo/ Myotis myotis/M. 66 61.682 LC NT 3 4 lI ll + bly blythii* Myobra Myotis brandtii 55 51.402 LC LC 3 4 I Il + Myocap Myotis capaccinii* 54 50.467 VU VU 2,3 2,4 II II + Myobly Myotis blythii* 45 42.056 LC NT 2,3 2,4 lI lI + Myomyo Myotis myotis* 44 41.121 LC NT 2,3 2,4 I I + Myoema Myotis emarginatus 41 38.318 LC VU 2,3 2,4 I I + Rhimeh — Rhinolophus 26 24.299 VU VU 2,3 2,4 HT] lI + mehelyi* Rhimed Rhinolophus media 25 23.364 LC/. VU 2,3 2,4 lI ll + species complex* NT Pleaus Plecotus austriacus 25 23.364 LC LC 3 4 II I + Rhi sp. Rhinolophus sp.* 24 22.43 N/A 2,3 12,4 H] lI + Myobec Myotis bechsteinii 24 22.43 NT VU 2,3 2,4 Il ll + Important underground roosts for bats in Bulgaria: current state and priorities ... 7 Code Species No of Relative IUCN BG BBA 92/43 BERN BON EUROBATS caves occurrence Red EEC Book Rhibla Rhinolophus blasii* 23 21.495 LC VU 2,3 2,4 II I + Myodau Myotis daubentonii 23 21.495 LC 3 4 I Ht] + Eptser Eptesicus serotinus 21 19.626 LC LC 3 4 HT] II + Nycnoc WNyctalus noctula 16 14.953 LC LC 3 4 Ht] I + Hipsav Hypsugo savii 16 14.953 LC LC 3 4 Il Il + Pippip —_—Pipistrellus 14 13.084 Lew re 3 4 II II + pipistrellus Myonat Myotis nattereri 13 12.15 LC LC 3 4 I Il + Barbar Barbastella 12 11.21 NT VU 2,3 2,4 I I + barbastellus Myo sp. Myotis sp. 9 8.4112 NA NA 3 4 II II + Pleaur Plecotus auritus 8 7.4766 LC NT 3 4 I I + Myomys Myotis mystacinus 8 7.4766 LC LC 3 4 Il I + Vesmur = Vespertilio murinus 6 5.6075 LC LC 3 4 II I + Myoalc Myotis alcathoe 5 4.6729 DD 3 Il I + Nyclei Nyctalus leisleri 5 4.6729 LC VU 3 4 Il II + Pippyg Pipistrellus 5 4.6729 LC 3 4 Ht] II + pygmaeus Rhimeh/ Rhinolophus 4 3.7383 NA VU 2,3 2,4 I II + eur mehelyil R. euryale Myoaur Myotis aurascens 4 3.7383 LC 3 4 lI I + Pip sp. Pipistrellus sp. 3 2.8037 N/A 3 4 Il I + Pipkuh/ — Pippistrillus kuhliil = 3 2.8037 LC 3 4 HT I + nat P. nathusii Pipkuh Pipistrellus kuhlii 3 2.8037 LC 3 4 II I + Pipnat Pipistrellus nathusii 3 2.8037 LC LC 3 4 II I + Tadten Tadarida teniotis 3 2.8037 LC DD 3 4 I I + Eptnil Eptesicus nilssonii 0 0 LC DD 3 4 II I + Myodas Myotisdasycneme 0 0 NT 3 2,4 Il I + 8 Deleva S et al Code Species No of _ Relative IUCN BG BBA 92/43 BERN BON EUROBATS caves occurrence Red EEC Book Nyclas Nyctalus 0 0 VU VU 3 4 I I + lasiopterus Ple sp. Plecotus sp. 0 0 NA NA 3 4 Il I + We assessed a total of 107 underground sites for this current prioritisation analysis. We obtained data for 92 bat roosts from previous records (Ivanova 2005). We included an additional 15 sites recently added to the list, with 96 (90%) natural caves, six (6%) overground sites (buildings, Fig. 2), three (3%) mine sites and two (2%) bunkers. We included information on location, occupancy (Summer, winter or both), protected areas, importance, threats and species diversity. The exact coordinates of the roosts could not be shared publicly as the locations contain the presence of sensitive to disturbance species and habitats, for which visitation, even for research purposes, could be harmful. We present the low-resolution coordinates of the roosts in Suppl. material 1, following the recommendations of the Best Practices for Generalising Sensitive Species Occurrence Data (Chapman 2020). The exact locations will be made available upon request. Regarding the level of protection, most of the sites (n = 64) received legal protection in the form of visitation prohibition by the Natura 2000 network (Habitats Directive), 31 cave sites are located in protected natural landmarks, nine caves within protected areas and two within natural reserves (Suppl. material 1). A single cave (Tangarachkata) does not have legal protection. Almost all the roosts were subjected to some form of visitation regulations. Visitation is prohibited during the breeding season of bats (from 1 March to 30 June) in 54 sites, a single site during the hibernation period (from 1 December to 31 March) and both breeding and hibernation periods in three sites. Visitation is prohibited all year round in 28 sites and three caves are restricted for camping or group visits. There are no visitation restrictions for 13 sites. Physical conservation actions and restrictions present in Bulgaria include gates, fences, signs and some security regulations. There are 18 sites currently equipped with gates and seven have a fence around the entrance. Signboards with information about bats are placed on 37 sites. There are six show caves with more strict protection due to their economic value (e.g. entrance gate, opening hours, personnel and signalling security equipment) (Suppl. material 1). The disturbance is by far the main concern for the majority of the sites (n = 98), followed by the threat of roost destruction (n = 4) and improper gate design (n = 4, Fig. 3). Only one site did not face any conservation concerns, as the bat colony is located in a heavily guarded area. The main target groups, which might cause disturbance are tourists (n = 35), cavers (n = 55, Fig. 4), rock climbers (n = 1) and occasional visitors (n = 1). In eight of the sites, the main disturbing factors were cave and bat researchers, who were the most frequent visitors. Our suggested conservation actions include restriction of visitation, modification of cave gates, placement of signboards and actions, specifically aimed at cavers. In the case of the Tangarachkata cave, we propose that the site should be declared a protected area. Important underground roosts for bats in Bulgaria: current state and priorities ... Figure 2. EES Artificial structures such as Perla 2 (1A and 1B), Abandoned residency (2A and 2B) and an abandoned mushroom greenhouse (3A and 3B) are sheltering large colonies of cave-dwelling bats. Some natural caves in Bulgaria are adapted for human use: Mandrata in the village of Mikre (4) has a whole house built at the entrance, the cave with the same name nearby - Mandrata at Alexandrovo, is accessible with an automobile (5). The Karangin Cave, located in the Rhodope Mountain is turned into a sheepfold (6). Photo credit: S. Deleva. Figure 3. EES Improper gate design: A - the gate at the Musinska Cave allows bats to fly in and out, but it is not optimal. B - the cave at the entrance of Kalna Matnitsa Cave remains open to allow bat access. C - The Kaleto Cave entrance is equipped with a gate, that might stop bats, but does not stop visitors. D - The gate at the Uhlovitsa show Cave is still waiting for its renovation. E - Although the intention of the gate at the Bratanova Cave entrance is to protect bats, it is built without consulting with the EUROBATS recommendations. F - The gate at one of the entrances of the Magurata show cave. Photo credit: S. Deleva. 10 Deleva S et al es Figure 4. EES] Examples of ineffective cave gates: 1 - Parts of the gate of the Bratanovata Cave are twisted to allow easier access. 2. The fence at the Divdyadovski Zandan Cave cannot stop visitors. 3 - Access to the Derventskata Cave is officially restricted, but cavers are freely passing through the gate. 4 - Kaleto Cave has a locked gate, but cavers have created a shortcut under it. 5 and 6 - the Elenina dupka Cave has a very strong gate, but cavers have unscrewed the bolts holding the padlock. Photo credits: S. Deleva (1, 2, 4 and 6), M. Kolev (3), S. Markova (5). We used data generated from a previous cave assessment over a period of time for our BCVI prioritisation (Table 2). Therefore, our results for species diversity and abundance represent the maximum population estimates of each roost rather than the current state of the populations. Amongst the assessed caves in terms of Biotic Potential (BP), 47 (44%) of the caves have the highest BP (Level 1), while five (5, 5%) caves at mid-high (Level 2), 13 (12%) caves at mid-low (Level 3) and 42 (39%) roost at the lowest level (Level 4). In terms of Biotic Vulnerability (BV), 20 (19%) of the sites were the most vulnerable to threats (Status A), 56 (52%) are in the mid-high vulnerability (Status B) and 31 (29%) are in the mid-low level. No cave sites were recorded in Status D (i.e. the lowest level of vulnerability). Of the roosts with the highest BP, 43 are natural caves and four are buildings and infrastructures. Five of the most vulnerable bat roosts (Status A) are show caves, but three are not, yet they are as easy to explore and even more accessible than a show cave. There were 31 roosts that scored as low conservation priority. Most of them are vertical caves, located in remote areas with restricted access (Table 2). At the provincial level, BP levels did not show a significant difference (x? = 77.41, p = 0.1591) with four (n = 4) and two (n = 2) provinces having all its roosts considered in high and low levels in terms of BP, respectively. Similarly, BV did not show a significant difference at the provincial level (x? = 45.10, p = 0.426). Only a single province has all its caves falling within high vulnerability. Overall, combining BP and BV, we identified 34 (32%) high-priority caves that require the Important underground roosts for bats in Bulgaria: current state and priorities ... highest and most urgent need of conservation protection and 42 (39%) bat caves mid- priority that may need monitoring to ensure the existing population continues to thrive, while there are 31 (29%) at low priority, which can be potentially considered for other cave use and activities due to the absence of important or vulnerable bat populations (Fig. 5). When compared at the provincial level (x? = 249.515, p = 0.083), three Provinces (Kardzhali, Pleven and Varna) have all caves assessed as high-priority for conservation, while single provinces have all caves in medium-priority (Dobrich) and low-priority (Yambol) (Fig. 6). All threats and conservation actions are presented in Suppl. material 1. When we used the criteria, described by lvanova (2005), the importance status of the roosts was the following: International - 61 roosts, National - 33 roosts, regional - 6 roosts, no status - 7 roosts (Suppl. material 1). Table 2. Important bat underground roosts in Bulgaria and the Bat Cave Vulnerability Index. The show caves are marked with *. BP BV Type 1 A Cave 1 A Cave 1 A Cave 1 A Cave 1 A Cave 1 A Cave 1 A Cave 1 A Building 3 A Bunker Name Devetashkata Peshtera* Dyavolskoto Garlo* Emenskata Peshtera Karangin Magurata* Mandrata (Chavdarci) Orlova Chuka* Perla 2 Bunker Gara Peyo Yavorov Occupancy Winter/ Summer Winter Winter/ Summer Summer Winter/ Summer Winter/ summer Winter/ Summer Winter/ Summer Summer Legal visitation restrictions Show cave Show cave Breeding Year-round Show cave Breeding Show cave No Breeding Main concern Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Destruction Disturbance Target group Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Researchers Owners Tourists Immediate conservation actions Daily security. Signboards. Fines. Not needed Physical restriction of access to the cave entrance. Signboards Light reduction Physical restriction of access to the cave entrance. Limitation of bat capturing Immediate protection 11 12 BP BV Type 3 A Cave 3 A Cave 4 A Cave 4