Target Species. 3 This includes Scottish Government guidance on how government policies for the conservation and enhancement of Scotland s

Transcription

1 9 Ornithology Introduction and Overview 9.1 This chapter describes and evaluates the current ornithological interest within the proposed site and surrounding area and assesses the predicted effects of the proposed wind farm on this interest during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases. 9.2 The key issues relating to birds and wind farms are as follows: The effects of direct habitat loss due to land take by wind turbine bases, tracks and ancillary structures; The effects of indirect habitat loss, i.e. the displacement of birds from the proximity of the wind turbines. Such disturbance may occur as a consequence of construction work, or due to the presence of the wind farm close to nest or feeding sites or on habitual flight routes; and The effects of collision with rotating turbine blades, overhead wires, guy lines and fencing (i.e. killing or injury of birds), which is of particular relevance for sites located in areas known to support raptors or large concentrations of waterfowl. 9.3 In order to assess the potential impacts of a wind farm, both the value of the site itself and of the zone of potential influence around the site to birds and the level of flight activity within and adjacent to the site should be determined. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidance 1,2 recommends that assessment should concentrate on target species, for example those specially protected or those which occur at a development in regionally or nationally important numbers. Species that qualify as target species under SNH guidance are detailed in paragraph The following sections of this chapter set out details of the methodological approach to the surveys and assessment, describe the baseline conditions and fully assess the potential effect of the proposed wind farm on birds. Methodology Policy and Guidance 9.5 The ornithological assessment has taken account of the requirements of, and/or advice given in: Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive); Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive); The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended); Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); The Nature Conservation Scotland Act (2004); 1 Scottish Natural Heritage (2005). Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities. SNH, Battleby. 2 Scottish Natural Heritage (2006). Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds outwith designated areas. SNH, Inverness. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) Guidance 3 ; Planning Advice Note (PAN) 60: Planning for Natural Heritage; Survey methods for use in assessment of the impact of proposed onshore wind farms on bird communities 1 ; Assessing significance of impacts from onshore wind farms on birds outwith designated areas 2 ; Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms 4 ; The Scottish Borders Structure Plan (Policy Numbers S1 Environmental Impact, N2 International Sites, N3 National Sites, N4 Precautionary Principle, N5 Local Biodiversity Action, N6 Environmental Impact and N7 Protection of Nature Conservation Interest); The Scottish Borders Local Plan (Policy Numbers G1 Quality Standards for New Developments, G8 Development outwith Development Boundaries, NE1 International Nature Conservation Sites, NE2 National Nature Conservation Sites, NE3 Local Biodiversity and NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows); The Scottish Borders Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance; The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP); The Scottish Biodiversity List; and The Scottish Borders Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP). Target Species 9.6 Given the low levels of collision risk and the limited disturbance to the majority of bird species from wind farm developments to date, SNH guidance on the assessment of the effects of wind farms on ornithological interests 1,2 suggests that assessment should concentrate on species within the following categories: Species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive 5 ; Species protected under Schedule 1 6 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); Regularly occurring migratory species; and Red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern (Bo) 7. 3 This includes Scottish Government guidance on how government policies for the conservation and enhancement of Scotland s landscape and natural heritage should be reflected in land use planning. 4 Band, W., Madders, & Whitfield, P. (2007) Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. de Lucas, M, Janss, G. and Ferrer, (eds). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 5 Certain endangered, rare, or vulnerable bird species, which warrant special protection, are included on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. 6 All species of wild birds are afforded some degree of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, though some species that are considered to be rare or vulnerable are listed on Schedule 1 of the Act and are afforded additional protection to deter disturbance when nesting. 7 The background to the establishment of a traffic light system of conservation concern for UK birds is discussed in Gregory et al (2002). Red-listed species include those that are globally threatened have suffered an historical population decline (between 1800 and 1994) or which are perceived to have experienced rapid declines in their UK breeding population or contractions in their UK range of more than 50% over the past twenty-five years. Amber listed species may have suffered moderate declines or range contractions, have an unfavourable conservation status in Europe (and are therefore of European concern), breed in very low numbers (five year mean of 1-30 pairs breeding annually), breed at a limited number of sites, or occur in relatively high numbers in UK in comparison with other parts of Europe. Other species have green status, as they do not fulfil these criteria. This implies that the 9-1 Volume 2: Main Report

2 9.7 In addition, special consideration should also be given to species occurring at the site in regionally or nationally important numbers 8, species identified as being of conservation concern within UK or Local Biodiversity Action Plans and any other species for which the site hosts a particular concentration 1. In Scotland consideration should also be given to species listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List 9. Species within these categories that have potential to be affected by wind farm developments are defined as target species for the purposes of this assessment. Note that not all species on the above lists would be categorised as target species, e.g. most passerine species are not considered to be particularly susceptible to impacts from wind farms. Desk study and Scoping 9.8 It is necessary to ascertain the proximity of sites of conservation importance for birds in relation to a proposed wind farm development. There are no established criteria with regard to the distance from a proposed wind farm site that should be considered. A search area extending 20km from the development site was considered to be an appropriate distance given the potential presence of wildfowl (particularly geese) in the area. This distance was considered appropriate based on published information on maximum distances travelled by wildfowl between roost sites and foraging areas The presence of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within 20km of the development site boundary for which birds are a principal reason for notification or designation was determined by accessing the SNH and Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JN) websites and through use of the GIS tool MAGIC A literature search and review was also carried out in order to obtain contextual data and to gain further information on aspects of the ecology and behaviour of key species that could potentially be affected by the potential wind farm. Primary sources of contextual data were: Borders Birds Report ; The Birds of Scotland 13 ; and The Breeding Birds of South-East Scotland Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group (RSG) were also consulted for records of raptors within a 3km radius of the site. population of a species is either stable or increasing (or that too little is known about the population to allow the species to be included on the red or amber list). 8 When considering bird populations, importance is taken as meaning that a site supports at least 1% of the population under consideration, i.e. a nationally important site would support at least 1% of the Scottish breeding or wintering population. 9 The Scottish Biodiversity List is a list of flora, fauna and habitats considered by Scottish Ministers to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation and satisfies the requirements of Section 2(4) of The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act For example Giroux, J-F & Patterson, I.J. (1995). Daily movements and habitat use by radio-tagged pinkfooted geese Anser brachyrhynchus wintering in Northeast Scotland. Wildfowl 46: Murray, & Pyatt, G. (Eds) (2009) Borders Birds Report Scottish Ornithologists Club. 13 Forrester, W., Andrews, I.J., McInerny, C.J., Murray,, McGowan,, Zonfrillo,, Betts, W., Jardine, C. & Grundy, (eds) (2007). The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists Club, Aberlady. 14 Murray,, Holling,, Dott, H.E. & Vandome, P. (1998) The Breeding Birds of Southeast Scotland: a tetrad atlas Scottish Ornithologists Club, Edinburgh SNH, Scottish Borders Council (SBC) Ecologist and RSPB were also contacted during scoping and asked to supply any relevant information In addition, a report describing the breeding bird and Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out at the site in 2009 by Ecology Consulting was available (see Appendix 8.1). This included breeding bird territory mapping, following similar methodology to the survey carried out by AMEC, with three-visits in April, May and June 2009, although the survey area extended out to 500m from the 2010 survey area. The key objective of the desk study and breeding bird surveys at the site was to establish whether any species or populations of nature conservation importance were likely to make regular use of the site and adjacent areas, or the airspace above it. Field Surveys 9.14 Bird surveys comprised Vantage Point (VP) surveys, winter walkover surveys and breeding bird territory mapping surveys, details of which are presented in the following sections VP watches, based upon the method statement prepared by Mike Madders for SNH, and appended to SNH (2005) 1 were undertaken over a 16 month period, thus covering two winters ( and ) and one breeding season (2010), and including the 2010 spring and autumn migratory periods. This method focuses on identifying flight-paths of target species such as geese and allows any regularly used flight lines to be identified, allowing turbine locations to be altered where necessary to reduce collision risk to birds. The data generated can also be used to estimate the theoretical risk of collision with turbines by incorporation into a suitable model During VP watches priority is given to recording the flight activity of target species (as defined by SNH guidance). However, under the Madders methodology, non-target species activity is also recorded during each five minute interval within the standard three hour VP watch. Additional data were therefore collected on all species using the development site during VP watches, which were used to assist in the characterisation of the bird community at the site Winter VP surveys were carried out between 19 December 2009 and 23 March 2010 and between 23 September 2010 and 25 March 2011; breeding season VP surveys were conducted between 28 April and 24 August The Madders methodology guidance is that VPs should be chosen to achieve maximum site visibility from the minimum number of locations such that all parts of the survey area are within 2 km of a vantage point. On this basis two VPs within the site boundary were chosen to cover the area where turbines would be located. Those used between December 2009 and August 2010 were NT (VP 1) and NT (VP 2). Access restrictions prevented locating the VPs outwith the site. However, they were chosen such that the airspace in the vicinity of VP1 could be viewed from VP2 and vice versa, meaning that the presence of the observer potentially affecting target species flight lines was not an issue. As a result of being allowed access to land outwith the site, two new locations were chosen to replace these for the surveys carried out between 23 September 2010 and 25 March The new locations were NT (VP 1) and NT (VP 2). All VP locations are shown on Figure Bird flights were recorded in six height bands: less than 10m, 10-20m, 20-30m, 30-40m, m and greater than 130m SNH guidance on survey methods for the assessment of bird communities at proposed onshore wind farms 1 states that survey effort should be matched to conservation sensitivity. A total of 24 hours of survey was undertaken from each VP between 19 December 2009 and 23 March 2010, a total of 36 Volume 2 : Main Report 9-2

3 hours of watches was carried out at each of the two VPs between 28 April and 24 August 2010 and a total of 42 hours of survey was undertaken from each VP between 23 September 2010 and 25 March Dates and times of the VP surveys are given in the baseline reports in Technical Appendices Monthly walkover surveys were carried out between 22 December 2009 and 16 March 2010 and between 24 September 2010 and 11 March The surveys involved walking the site and surrounding area, scanning with binoculars and telescope from suitable vantage points and recording birds seen in the area, with particular emphasis on recording target species. The main aim of the walkover surveys was to determine whether any target species were regularly feeding or roosting within the surrounding area, as this would not necessarily be recorded from VP watches (these being designed to detect birds in flight). Dates and times of the winter walkover surveys are given in Technical Appendices 9.2 and Breeding bird territory mapping was carried out within the survey area to record birds nesting on site and in the surrounding area. As recommended in SNH guidance 1, the surveys were based on Common Bird Census (CBC) methodology 15,16 and involved three visits between April and June. The survey area also encompassed the areas of suitably mature plantation surrounding the site that fell within 1 km of the turbine area, in order to check whether any goshawks were holding territory. In addition farm buildings were checked for evidence of barn owl breeding during these surveys. Each visit was conducted in suitable weather conditions i.e. good visibility and avoiding strong winds (greater than Beaufort force 5) or persistent rain and all birds were mapped using standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) notation. Dates of the territory mapping surveys were as follows: 24 April 2010; 20 May 2010; and 18 June All target species observed outside formal, timed surveys ( incidental records ) were also recorded (i.e. those seen during walks within the development site and surrounding area and during other breaks in survey work) Each survey visit was conducted in suitable weather conditions i.e. good visibility and avoiding strong winds (greater than Beaufort force 5) or persistent rain and all birds were mapped using standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) notation. Note that there was 8-10 cm of snow covering the site during the December 2010 walkover survey and the ground was still frozen in some areas during the January 2011 survey. Framework for Evaluation of Receptors 9.25 There are a multitude of variables that affect the responses of individual living organisms, populations, communities and ecosystems to changes in their environment. These are only partially understood or studied, and it is therefore rarely possible to make predictions about the ecological effects of any form of development with absolute confidence. Prediction relies on a synthesis of the information gathered during the baseline surveys and studies of the site, together with the body of contextual information and knowledge available from written sources (both published and unpublished). Input is also required from those individuals and organisations with expertise in, or 15 Marchant, J.H. (1983) BTO Common Birds Census Instructions. BTO, Thetford. 16 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, W. and Evans, J. (1998) Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB Sandy. local knowledge of, relevant aspects of ecology. Early investigations into the potential for terrestrial wind farms in the UK to cause significant displacement or mortality of birds concluded that this was most unlikely in any but the most exceptional circumstances e.g. wind farms in migration flyways or areas where the food resource within the wind farm is exceptional (see early reviews of the topic by e.g. Percival and Gill et al ). Although various post-construction ornithological monitoring studies are being undertaken in the UK, the results of few of these have been made publicly available as formal peer-reviewed scientific papers. An increasing number are, however, becoming available in the grey literature (i.e. they are not formally peer-reviewed) and are available on the internet. In predicting the effects of an individual wind farm, the consultant is therefore obliged to draw on these as well as additional information from studies elsewhere in Europe (again, increasingly available as grey literature) Four criteria have been used in evaluating the ornithological impacts of the proposed development: The type of effect, i.e. whether it is beneficial, adverse, neutral or uncertain; The probability of the effect occurring based on the scale of certain, likely or unlikely; The nature conservation importance of the resource under consideration, based on guidelines initially developed by SNH and British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) 19 and expanded on in SNH (2006) 2 and Percival (2007) 20, which are set out in Table 9.1; and The magnitude of the impact in relation to the resource which has been evaluated based on Percival et al and Percival , which are set out in Table The guidelines aim to make the evaluation of nature conservation importance relatively straightforward. Under these, both the value of the birds using a site with regard to the percentage of the population under consideration that it supports, and their conservation status (for example Schedule 1/Annex 1 and UK BAP species) are used along with other factors to assess the nature conservation importance of a site. These terms only set out to evaluate the importance of species however; the importance of the habitat is not evaluated. Thus the nature conservation importance of a bird occurring in optimal, and hence possibly more productive habitat, is considered equal to that of a bird in a sub-optimal area It should be noted that the approach of this assessment is to also consider the value of the development site for the species under consideration, rather than only considering the nature conservation importance of the species itself. To illustrate the rationale of this approach, while bullfinch would be considered to be a species of medium conservation importance using the criteria in Table 9.1 by virtue of being a UKBAP Priority species, the value of a site which was only used very occasionally by a single bullfinch would be extremely limited. Therefore, in this case, nature conservation importance would be assessed as being Low Therefore, while the importance of the species is taken into account, in order to assess the nature conservation importance of the site, the number of individuals of that species using it and the nature 17 Percival, (2000) Birds and wind turbines in Britain. British Wildlife 12(1): Gill, J.P., Townsley, and Mudge, G.P. (1996) Review of the impacts of wind farms and other aerial structures upon birds. SNH Review 21, 68pp. 19 Percival,, Band, B & Leeming. (1999) Assessing the ornithological effects of wind farms: developing a standard methodology. Proc of the 21st British Wind Energy Association Conference. 20 Percival, (2007) Predicting the Effects of Wind Farms on Birds in the UK: The Development of an Objective Assessment Method. In: Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. de Lucas, M, Janss, G. and Ferrer, (eds). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 9-3 Volume 2: Main Report

4 and level of this use is also taken into account. An assessment is then made of the importance of the proposed development site to that species. Magnitude Definition Table 9.1: Definition of Terms Relating to the Nature Conservation Value of Important Species Importance Very High High Medium Low Negligible Definition A species which is part of the cited interest of an SPA or SSSI. Species present in internationally important numbers. Other non-cited species which contribute to the integrity of an SPA or SSSI. Ecologically sensitive species such as rare birds (<300 breeding pairs in the UK) and the less common birds of prey (e.g. golden eagle, honey buzzard, osprey, marsh harrier and hen harrier). A species present in nationally important numbers (>1 % UK Population 21 ). A species listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive and/or Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Regularly occurring relevant migratory species which are either rare or vulnerable, or warrant special consideration on account of the proximity of migration routes, or breeding, moulting, wintering or staging areas in relation to the proposed wind farm. Species present in regionally important numbers (>1 % of regional population). Species occurring within SPAs and SSSIs, but not crucial to the integrity of the site. Species listed as priority species in the UK BAP subject to special conservation measures. Species covered above which are present very infrequently or in very low numbers. Any other species of conservation interest not covered above, e.g. species listed on the red or amber lists of the Bo Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton et al ). Species that remain common and widespread Table 9.2:Definition of Terms relating to the Magnitude of Effects on a Site High Medium Low Negligible Major loss or major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline (predevelopment) conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes will be fundamentally changed. Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes of the baseline will be partially changed. Minor shift away from the baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration will be discernible but underlying character/composition/attributes of the baseline condition will be similar to predevelopment circumstances/patterns. Very slight change from the baseline condition. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the no change situation It should be noted that it is only impacts that are likely to have significant effects that require detailed assessment. The level of an effect is largely a product of the value of the ecological receptor and the magnitude of the effect on it, moderated by professional judgement. Table 9.3 illustrates a matrix, which is used for guidance in the assessment of level of effect, with effects being considered to be of major or minor level, or negligible. Only effects that fall into the major category (shaded in Table 9.3) are regarded as significant and therefore require detailed assessment. The use of the minor category is used in acknowledgement that there are instances whereby there may be an effect, albeit that this is not likely to be significant. It is also used to facilitate assessment of cumulative effects e.g. where cumulatively several minor effects could be significant. Table 9.3:Matrix for Gauging the Level of Effects Value of Receptor Magnitude of Impact Very High/High Medium Low Negligible Very High Major Major Major Minor Magnitude Very High Definition Total loss or very major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that the post development character/composition/attributes will be fundamentally changed and may be lost from the site altogether. High Major Major Minor Minor Medium Major Major Minor Minor Low Minor Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible. 21There is no fundamental biological reason to take 1% of a population as the threshold level for establishing the international importance of a site. However, this percentage is widely considered to be of value in giving an appropriate level of protection to populations, and has gained acceptance on this basis throughout the world. The criterion was, for example, adopted by parties involved in the Ramsar Convention. Thereafter, the 1% level of national species totals has been taken as the basis of assessment in various countries, including Britain (Stroud, Mudge & Pienkowski, 1990). 22 Eaton, A., Brown, A.F., Noble, G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn,, Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, W., Evans, A. & Gregory, (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102: (Bo3) Baseline Information Desk Study and Scoping 9.31 There are three SPAs within 20km of the survey area that have been designated for their ornithological significance: St Abbs Head to Fast Castle SPA, c. 1.7km north-east and designated for its internationally important assemblage of breeding seabirds, including guillemot, razorbill, shag, kittiwake and herring gull (see Figure 8.1). Volume 2 : Main Report 9-4

5 Greenlaw Moor SPA, c. 19km south-west and designated for its population of wintering pinkfooted geese. Firth of Forth SPA, c. 17km to the north-west and designated for its wintering and migratory wildfowl and waders In addition, Greenlaw Moor and Firth of Forth are Ramsar sites and all three sites are SSSIs Scoping responses (see Chapter 6) from SNH, RSPB and the SBC Ecologist suggested key concerns were likely to be wintering greylag geese and hen harrier and that the cumulative assessment should include Drone Hill, Crystal Rig 1 and 2 and Aikengall wind farms Records of protected raptor species from the Lothian and Borders RSG included occasional sightings of goshawk from the Penmanshiel Wood area, but breeding has not been recorded here. There were no peregrine breeding sites within a 3km radius of the site, but there are several successful coastal sites within hunting range of peregrines. The RSG also confirmed that there were no breeding records for hen harrier, merlin, kestrel, sparrowhawk, barn owl or long-eared owl. Buzzards were not monitored in Penmanshiel Wood by the RSG, but are likely to be breeding as they are now widespread in the area The key findings of the Ecology Consulting surveys (see Appendix 8.1) are summarised in the following points. No species considered to be of very high or high importance were recorded breeding within the study area. Eleven species considered to be of medium importance (due to their inclusion on the UKBAP list of priority species) were recorded breeding within the study area: lapwing, curlew, skylark, dunnock, song thrush, starling, house sparrow, linnet, lesser redpoll, yellowhammer and reed bunting. Of these, skylark, linnet, lesser redpoll and yellowhammer were the most abundant (with 10 or more pairs of each species recorded within the survey area). The surveys did not identify any important breeding populations that would be likely to be a major issue with a wind farm development at the site. While it was acknowledged that some minor effects may occur on the breeding birds it was considered unlikely that these would be significant (provided disturbance to Schedule 1 species during the breeding season was avoided). Herring gulls were regularly recorded (peak count 107) but were not breeding in the study area. It was thought that these birds were probably from the St. Abb s Head to Fast Castle SPA. Hen harrier was the only species considered to be of high importance that was recorded over-flying the study area. There was a single record of two birds and another sighting of a single female; both records were in April In addition to the information above, the general desk study suggested the nearby moorland areas have potential to support wintering hen harrier, merlin and short-eared owl. Migratory and wintering geese may fly over the survey area and golden plover are likely to occur in the area during the winter and migratory periods. Barn owl is likely to occur in the area year round. Field Survey Results Winter 2009/10 and 2010/ During the winter 2009/10 VP watches 19 flights of target species were recorded: a flock of 12 whooper swans, three flocks of pink-footed geese (23, 28 and 80 birds), a flock of six greylag geese, two flocks of barnacle geese (5 and 16 birds), two flocks of golden plover (20 and 4 birds), two hen harrier flights, two goshawk flights, two merlin flights and four peregrine flights. Nine of the flights included periods at collision risk height (CRH). Details are provided in Technical Appendix 9.2 and flight lines are presented in Figure 9.2. Secondary species recorded during the winter 2009/10 vantage point watches were as follows: two curlew flights (one of a single bird and one of a pair of birds) and one snipe; none of these included periods at CRH Nineteen flights of target species were also recorded during the winter 2010/11 VP watches: eight pink-footed goose flights ( birds), five greylag goose flights (6-31 birds), three merlin flights (all single birds) and single flights of red kite, goshawk and peregrine. Seven of the goose flights were at CRH. Details are provided in Technical Appendix 9.3 and flight lines are presented in Figure 9.3. Secondary species recorded during the winter 2010/11 vantage point watches were as follows: three curlew flights (two of single birds and one of 16 birds) and one lapwing flight (a single bird); two of the curlew flights included periods at collision risk height (CRH) over Broad Bog, which is within the turbine area In addition to the greylag geese flights above, six flocks of greylag geese were observed during the winter 2009/10 VP watches, and three during the winter 2010/11 VP watches (all numbering between seven and 87 birds) but were not mapped because they were either beyond the survey area, or because they were very high flights considerably above CRH Herring gulls were also recorded regularly during VP watches in both winter survey periods the only SPA species that is likely to use the site. During the 2009/10 winter surveys, numbers were generally low, although flocks of up to 125 birds were occasionally recorded. Flocks of up to herring gulls were also observed flying to and from coastal roost sites (generally early and late in the day), but these were to the north and south of the survey area. Most of these birds congregated to forage in distant fields to the west of the survey area, sometimes in large numbers (up to 2,500 birds at times). During the 2010/11 winter surveys numbers ranged from just a handful of birds between September and November to a flock of 1,000+ birds moving inland in mid-january During VP watches in both winter survey periods there were regular sightings of buzzard, and corvids such as jackdaw and rook (which sometimes occurred in flocks of several hundred birds). There were also regular sightings of sparrowhawk and kestrel as well as flocks of fieldfare and occasional large flocks of starling. Woodpigeon were regularly present occasionally occurring in flocks of several hundred birds. Occasional flocks of linnets (up to 500 birds) were also recorded. Walkover surveys 9.42 During the winter 2009/10 walkover surveys two flocks of pink-footed geese (40 birds and 6 birds) were recorded flying over the site on 22/12/2009. Small numbers of waders (curlew, snipe, woodcock and a single lapwing) were occasionally recorded, particularly in December The only raptor species observed were buzzard, sparrowhawk and kestrel. In January 2010 several groups of red grouse (ranging in size from 5 to 20 birds) were recorded, generally in plantation edge/heather moorland; one group was at the southern tip of the survey area, but most birds were observed just 9-5 Volume 2: Main Report

6 beyond the northern boundary. The presence of red grouse within the survey area was uncharacteristic of the habitats present, and may have been related to prolonged harsh weather conditions Flocks of several passerine species were occasionally recorded. These included a flock of 300 finches (mainly chaffinches and linnets) feeding in a field of brassicas and 40 coal tits feeding in a plantation edge. Both flocks were recorded in December 2009 in the southwest section of the survey area, close to Moss Maw. Other notable flocks included a large mixed flock of gulls and corvids (350 birds) recorded feeding in snow covered pasture in January and 100+ jackdaws feeding in pasture close to Penmanshiel Farm in March. For each species recorded, the number of individuals observed during each winter walkover survey visit is presented in Technical Appendix Six flights of geese were recorded over the site during the winter 2010/11 walkover surveys. Three flocks of pink-footed geese (23, 53 and c.80 birds all above CRH) and one of greylag geese (at 100m) on 15 October 2010; and two flights of around 90 pink footed geese on 23 November 2010 (at 120m and 150m). An adult male hen harrier was recorded foraging low in the Lady s Folly area of the site on 29 December 2010; the only other raptor species observed during the 2010/11 walkover surveys were occasional buzzards and kestrels Herring gulls were regularly recorded during the walkover survey, often in flocks, with numbers peaking at around 1,500 birds on 15 January Most records were of birds feeding and loafing in fields within and around the site, while those observed on 15 January were circling high just beyond the south-east section of the site (over the fields bordering Howpark Road) and drifting away to the south-east to forage in the fields. Other species regularly recorded in feeding flocks included woodpigeon (up to 350 birds), rook (up to 200 birds), jackdaw (up to 150 birds), chaffinch (up to 50 birds) and linnet (up to 500 birds). With the exception of these flocks, relatively low numbers of birds were observed during the winter surveys. For each species recorded, the number of individuals observed during each winter walkover survey visit is presented in Technical Appendix 9.3. Breeding season 9.46 Just four flights of target species were recorded during the breeding season 2010 vantage point watches: two of a single marsh harrier, one of golden plover (five birds) and a single peregrine. Of these, only the golden plover flight was at CRH. Details are provided in Technical Appendix 9.1 and flight lines are presented in Figure 9.4. Secondary species recorded during the breeding season 2010 vantage point watches were as follows: three curlew flights (two of single birds and one of a pair of birds) and one snipe flight; none of these included periods at CRH During the breeding season herring gull activity was low, with a maximum of c birds an hour, observed in ones or twos, mainly flying low across the survey area A limited range of non-target species was recorded during the breeding season VP watches and most were recorded in low numbers (with the exception of a single flock of 78 woodpigeon). The most notable species were small numbers of song thrush, linnet, yellowhammer and a single lesser redpoll. There were regular sightings of buzzard, woodpigeon, swallow, carrion crow and chaffinch, as well as occasional records of mallard, grey heron, sparrowhawk, kestrel, swift, house martin, meadow pipit, pied wagtail, jay, rook, siskin and several gull species (black-headed, herring, common, great blackbacked and lesser black-backed). Curlews were also heard on two occasions in June passerine species, such as chaffinch, robin, coal tit and goldcrest. Curlews were recorded from two locations during the survey and small numbers were recorded during the VP watches. While there was no direct evidence of them breeding it is possible that they made an attempt in the Moss Maw area and in the northern part of the site or adjacent to it (as was recorded in 2009). A snipe was also recorded in this area during VP watches and may also have made a breeding attempt (although again there was no direct evidence). The only raptor species recorded during the territory mapping surveys were occasional records of buzzard and kestrel, but there was no evidence that goshawk or any raptor species was breeding within the survey area. No evidence of barn owl breeding was found in any of the suitable buildings on site. Small numbers of house sparrows and swallows were recorded in the vicinity of Penmanshiel Farm, and are likely to have bred here and small numbers of skylark also bred. Details of numbers of pairs of each species are presented in Technical Appendix 9.1 and the indicative territory locations are presented in Figure A large mixed gull flock of around 700 birds (mainly herring gulls, with a few lesser black-backed and black-headed gulls) was recorded on the June visit close to Penmanshiel Farm, foraging behind a tractor The only target species observed outwith formal surveys was a single barn owl hunting at the roadside of the A1 south of Grantshouse, at least 2km away from the site boundary at 0340 on 25 June Evaluation of Resources 9.52 This section evaluates the ornithological importance of the site, in regional, national and international contexts. When considering bird populations, importance is often taken as meaning that a site supports at least 1% of a population under consideration at regional, national or international level. With the exception of a few species, however, estimates of regional population size are often unavailable, or only occur for one season of the year. In most cases, therefore, professional judgement based on experience, consultation with knowledgeable local consultees and extrapolation from national population estimates and breeding ranges, is used to determine whether species present are likely to occur in regionally important numbers. It should be noted that the definition of what constitutes a region also varies for those species where numbers are known. Hence the site can be considered to be within Scottish Borders or the wider area of south-east Scotland. For the purposes of this appraisal, Scottish Borders is considered to be an appropriate area for the region as reasonably contemporary figures for regional populations of important bird species are available The conservation importance of each species recorded within or in close proximity to the site, including an evaluation of conservation importance following the BWEA and SNH guidelines, is summarised in Table 9.4. Species of negligible and low importance under SNH/BWEA guidelines have been omitted from the table as further appraisal of these species is not required. Species evaluated as medium or high conservation importance using the SNH/BWEA guidelines are discussed in further detail below Birds recorded during the 2010 breeding bird territory mapping survey were concentrated in small woodland blocks bordering the survey area. These were dominated by woodpigeons and a range of Volume 2 : Main Report 9-6

7 Table 9.4: Conservation Evaluation of Species Recorded at, or in Close Proximity to the Site Species Season Recorded Status BWEA/SNH Whooper swan W Ann 1, SBL, A High Pink-footed goose W A High Greylag goose W LBAP, A High Barnacle goose W Ann 1, SBL, A High Red grouse W UKBAP Medium Red kite W Ann 1, Sch 1, SBL, A High Marsh harrier B Ann 1, Sch 1, SBL, A High Hen harrier B/W Ann 1, Sch1, SBL, LBAP, R High Goshawk W Sch 1, High Merlin W Ann 1, Sch 1, SBL, LBAP, A High Peregrine B/W Ann 1, Sch 1, SBL, LBAP High Lapwing B*/W UKBAP, SBL, LBAP, R Medium Golden plover B/W Ann 1, SBL, A High Curlew B/W UKBAP, SBL, LBAP, A Medium Herring gull B/W UKBAP, SBL, R Medium Barn owl B Sch 1, SBL, LBAP, A High Skylark B/W UKBAP, SBL, LBAP, R Medium Fieldfare B/W Sch1, R High Song thrush B/W UKBAP, SBL, R Medium Redwing W Sch1, R High Starling B*/W UKBAP, R Medium House sparrow B/W UKBAP, LBAP, R Medium Linnet B/W UKBAP, SBL Medium Twite W UKBAP, R Medium Lesser redpoll B UKBAP, R Medium Common crossbill W Sch1 High Bullfinch B/W UKBAP, SBL, A Medium Yellowhammer B/W UKBAP, LBAP, R Medium Reed bunting B*/W UKBAP, SBL, LBAP, A Medium *Found during the 2009 surveys by Percival et al but not during the Amec 2010 breeding season surveys Key: W = Winter, B = Breeding season, Ann1 = Annex 1 of Birds Directive, Sch1 = Schedule 1 of the WCA, UKBAP = UKBAP Priority Species, SBL = Scottish Biodiversity List, LBAP = Local BAP (Scottish Borders Biodiversity Action Plan) Priority Species, R / A = Red/Amber listed on Bo 9.54 Whooper swan is listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive and is amber-listed due to its small UK breeding population and localisation in winter. The species is a common winter visitor and very rare breeder in Scotland, but locally, in the Borders, is described as an uncommon winter visitor 12, with c birds present in most winters on Teviot & Tweed Haughs. Only a single flight of whooper swan was recorded and the site is considered to be of low importance for whooper swan Scotland is a key wintering area for the Iceland and Greenland pink-footed goose population, with large feeding and roosting flocks in eastern and western areas, especially in autumn and early winter 13. It is described as an abundant winter visitor and passage migrant in the Borders Bird Report 12 with important roosts at West Water Reservoir (maximum 56,900 birds) approximately 21.5 km south-west of the site, and Hule Moss (maximum 18,500 birds) approximately 72 km to the southwest of the site. Only occasional flights of geese were recorded and there was no evidence of foraging on site or in adjacent fields. The site is therefore considered to be of low importance for pink-footed goose Greylag goose is a common resident in Scotland with a native breeding population in the north and west and a naturalised, probably re-established population in the south and east. After the breeding season these birds are joined by a large number of immigrants from Iceland that winter in lowland areas 13. Locally in the Borders Greylag geese are scarce breeders (c. 40 pairs) but common winter visitors to eastern areas with 1,000-3,000 birds present each winter 12. Only occasional flights of geese were recorded and there was no evidence of foraging on site or in adjacent fields. The site is therefore considered to be of low importance for greylag goose Barnacle goose is a common but localised wintering bird in Scotland with ~45,000 birds from Greenland wintering on the north and west coasts (mainly on islands) and a further 25,000 birds from Svalbard wintering around the inner Solway Firth in Dumfries & Galloway 13. Variable numbers of the Svalbard/Solway birds overfly the Borders in late September to early October; it is rarer during spring passage in May. Small numbers can overwinter in the area with pink-footed geese 12. Only occasional flights of geese were recorded and there was no evidence of foraging on site or in adjacent fields. The site is therefore considered to be of low importance for barnacle goose Red grouse is a UKBAP priority species and is amber-listed due to moderate declines in the UK breeding population. It is a common and widespread resident in Scotland, including the Borders 12, largely restricted to areas of heather moorland on which it depends for food, nesting habitat and cover from predators. The main threat to red grouse is loss of heather habitat 13. Red grouse were only recorded within the survey area during the January 2010 walkover survey, suggesting that their presence was not typical and may have been related to the harsh weather, with birds possibly being forced off high ground further afield due to prolonged, extensive, deep snow cover. The site is therefore unlikely to be regularly used by this species and is considered to be of low importance for red grouse Following successful reintroduction programmes, red kite numbers are increasing in Scotland, although, with an estimated breeding population of just 93 pairs in , they remain uncommon 13. In the Borders small numbers of (non-breeding) red kite are recorded each year; for example, there were single records in 2007 and There was a single record of a red kite flying across the site on 25 March 2011; the site is therefore considered to be of low importance for this species. 23 Etheridge,, Holling,, Riley, H., Wernham, C. & Thompson, Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report Volume 2: Main Report

8 9.60 Marsh harrier is a scarce migrant breeder in Scotland, where breeding pairs nest exclusively in reedbeds with a preference for reedbeds that are adjacent to areas of arable farmland. There are also a few winter records of marsh harrier in Scotland and small (but variable) numbers of passage migrants have been noted in both spring and autumn in most recording areas, with the majority along the east coast 13. Locally, marsh harrier is an increasingly frequent passage migrant in the Borders, although numbers remain low, with just five sightings reported in 2007 and one in The single marsh harrier recorded at the site on 28 April was clearly a bird on passage to breeding grounds elsewhere; the site is therefore considered to be of low importance for this species Hen harrier is red-listed due to an historical decline in the UK and unfavourable population status in Europe. Persecution of this species across Scotland is well documented and remains severe in certain areas 13, including the Borders, where hen harrier is a very rare breeding species. It is also a scarce passage migrant in the area and a few birds have wintered in recent years 12. Hen harriers were recorded only occasionally on site, which is therefore considered to be of low importance for hen harrier Following historical population demise, numbers and range of goshawk are slowly expanding. It is a scarce breeding bird in Scotland, with most pairs in the Borders and northeast Scotland 13. Around pairs are thought to be present in the Borders, though the species is absent from some areas due to persecution 12. Only three records of goshawk were made and there is no evidence of breeding on site or in the surrounding area. The site is therefore considered to be of low importance for goshawk Merlin numbers appear to be relatively stable or to have increased in recent decades although it remains amber-listed due to a previous historical decline. In Scotland merlins are scarce resident breeders on upland heather moors, and passage and winter visitors mainly to coastal and low lying areas. The most recent breeding population estimate for Scotland is 800 pairs 13. Locally, in the Borders, merlin is described as an uncommon breeder with perhaps pairs, most commonly encountered in northern hills. It is a widespread species but scarce passage migrant and winter visitor, mainly to the coast 12. Merlin was only recorded occasionally and therefore the site is considered to be of low importance for merlin Peregrine numbers have also increased in recent years in much of the UK including southern Scotland. The Scotland wide population is estimated at 600 pairs 13. In the Borders, peregrine is a scarce but local breeder; the population is around pairs but is increasing. There are also widespread records in the area outwith the breeding season, mostly between September and March. As with hen harrier and goshawk, peregrine is persecuted in some parts of the Borders 12. Peregrine was only recorded occasionally and there was no evidence of regular foraging by coastal nesting pairs from the wider area. The site is therefore considered to be of negligible importance for peregrine Lapwing is a UKBAP priority species and was recently red-listed due to a long-term decline in the UK breeding population, and because at least 20% of the European non-breeding population occurs in the UK. Lapwing is a common and widespread resident in Scotland 13. Locally, in the Borders, small numbers of lapwing overwinter although numerous sites held over 100 birds in 2007 and 2008; it is also a common breeding species, especially in the northern hills 12. A single pair was recorded breeding adjacent to the site in 2009 and single flights recorded in winter 2009/10 and 2010/11. The site is therefore considered to be of low importance for lapwing Golden Plover numbers in Scotland have experienced mixed fortunes in recent decades with substantial declines in some areas (including southern and north-east Scotland) and increases in others 24. Golden Plover is described in the Borders Bird Report 12 as a scarce visitor to high ground during the breeding season and uncommon on lower ground during the non-breeding season. Golden plover were only recorded on two occasions in small numbers and therefore the site is considered to be of low importance for golden plover Curlew is a UKBAP priority species and is amber-listed due to a widespread decline that is primarily attributed to agricultural change and afforestation 13. Locally, curlew is described as an abundant breeding species but very scarce in winter 12. Curlew bred on and surrounding the site in 2009 (and possibly 2010) in small numbers. Curlews recorded within the survey area during the winter were likely to have been birds on passage. The site is considered to be of low importance for curlew Herring gull is red-listed due to declines in both the breeding and non-breeding populations. However, the species is a common resident breeding bird in coastal Scotland, including the Borders 12. In winter herring gull occurs mainly in coastal areas, but may also move inland to feed and roost 13. It is possible that some of the herring gulls recorded in the survey area were from the St Abbs Head to Fast Castle SPA breeding population. During the breeding season, herring gull activity was low, with a maximum of c birds an hour, observed in ones or twos, usually drifting low across the site, with birds most likely searching for feeding opportunities. A gathering behind a plough on 18 June 2010 was the only large number encountered on site during the breeding season; it is likely that activities such as ploughing and muck spreading will be the main reason that herring gulls will be attracted to the site during the breeding season and over winter. During the winter surveys, numbers of herring gulls were generally low, although flocks of up to 125 birds were occasionally recorded. Most were in flight, with few using the survey area for foraging. Flocks of up to herring gulls were also observed flying to and from coastal roost sites (generally early and late in the day), but these were to the north and south of the survey area. Most of these birds congregated to forage in distant fields to the west of the survey area, sometimes in large numbers (up to 2,500 birds at times). During the winter surveys, herring gulls were recorded both in flight and foraging/loafing in fields within and around the site, particularly around Penmanshiel and Penmanshiel Wood. Numbers ranged from just a handful of birds to records of 1,000 to 1,500 birds in flight during January Birds appeared to use the site more than in the previous winter, with flocks of up to 400 birds foraging/loafing on site. It is possible that the prolonged snow cover and frozen ground during the winter months may have pushed higher numbers of birds inland to forage than is typical during a less severe winter. The site is considered to be of medium importance for herring gull The Scottish barn owl population appears to have been steadily growing since the 1980s and the population is estimated at pairs 13. In the Borders barn owl is recorded as an uncommon resident breeder, but the population here is increasing 12. Barn owl s amber listing is due to its unfavourable conservation status in Europe rather than any concerns about the UK population. There was no evidence of use of the site by barn owl, the nearest record being a foraging bird by the A1 c.2km south of the site. The site is therefore considered to be of negligible importance for barn owl Evaluations of passerine species are summarised in Table Sim, I.W., Gregory,, Hancock, H. & Brown, A.F. (2005). Recent changes in the abundance of British upland breeding birds. Bird Study 52: Volume 2 : Main Report 9-8

9 Table 9.5: Evaluation of the Conservation Importance of the Proposed Wind Farm Site for Passerine Species Recorded Species Maximum number of breeding territories in survey area ( ) Regional breeding population (pairs) Skylark 68 58,752 Low Fieldfare Winter visitor only Low Song thrush 7 38,280 Low Redwing Winter visitor only Low Starling 3 42,840 Low House sparrow 3 112, ,000 Low Linnet 14 23,200 Low Twite Recorded during winter only <10* Low Lesser redpoll 10 11,468 Low Common Crossbill possibly bred 5,000-10,000* Low Bullfinch Possibly bred 2,755-4,133 Low Yellowhammer 35 36,612 Low Reed bunting 4 2,686-3,002 Low Importance Figures are taken from the South-East Scotland Breeding Atlas 14, updated according to BBS trends for Scotland between 1995 and where these are available. *BBS trends are not produced for crossbill or twite; the breeding population sizes are thus approximate numbers taken directly from the South- East Scotland Breeding Atlas Key: AM = 2010 Amec breeding season surveys (see Appendix 9.1), ECM =2009 Ecology Consulting breeding season surveys (see Appendix 8.1) Predicted future Baseline 9.71 In the absence of development, it is assumed that the development area would remain as a combination of coniferous plantation and mixed arable-pasture farmland for the foreseeable future. Forestry is likely to be felled in compartments over time and subsequently re-planted. No change from the current farming practices carried out at the development site is anticipated in the short term and consequently for the most part the bird community is likely to remain broadly similar. However, as a result of changes in the agricultural support regime, it is possible that management of this area could change over the medium to long term. It is difficult to predict what this would mean for the development site, but any change in the pattern of agricultural land use could have direct effects on the sizes and distribution of bird populations, although these will be complex and, to a certain extent, species-specific. Matters may be further complicated by the effects of climatic change on bird productivity, survival rates and breeding ranges. Recent collaborative work by Durham University, the BTO and RSPB predict substantial changes in species ranges during the coming decades with an average shift of 4km per year and contraction of range and species richness Risely, K., Baillie,, Eaton, A., Joys, A.C., Musgrove, A.J., Noble, G., Renwick, A. and Wright, L.J. (2010) The Breeding Bird Survey BTO Research Report 559. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford. 26 Huntley,, Green, E., Collingham, C., Willis, G. (2007). A climatic atlas of European breeding birds. Durham University, The RSPB 9.72 It is planned to fell the forestry plantation on site before construction of the scheme. This will obviously have a dramatic effect on the bird community supported by this part of the site. The bird community that will develop here will depend on how the habitats develop but it is anticipated that they will be species adapted to more open areas comprising moorland, grassland and scrub (see paragraph 9.76) Survey work represents a snapshot of the bird community at the time of the survey and cannot be extrapolated to predict future population trends in the wake of agricultural change or climate disruption. Predicted Effects of the Scheme and Inherent Mitigation 9.74 Potential effects of the development comprise the following: Direct loss of habitat from construction of turbine bases, access tracks and other structures. This could also result in destruction or damage to nests and or eggs/chicks; Displacement from habitat either by construction activities or presence of operational turbines (and associated maintenance activities); and Collision in flight with turbines, overhead wires, met mast and other structures Mitigation inherent in the development to avoid or reduce some of these potential impacts comprises the following: Nest damage or destruction will be avoided by temporarily removing vegetation or making otherwise potential nesting habitat unsuitable for this purpose within the working area. This would be done outwith the breeding season (April to July inclusive) or after an inspection by an independent ecologist had confirmed no breeding birds were present. All electric cables on site will be underground, thus avoiding the potential for bird strike. Similarly the permanent anemometry mast will be of lattice design rather than a guyed structure, reducing the risk of collision. Enhancement Measures 9.76 Enhancement measures to improve the habitat types on site, particularly in the area of the plantation that would be felled are proposed in Chapter 8: Ecology and Appendix 8.3: Outline Habitat Management Plan. These measures seek to develop a heath, grassland, marshy grassland and scrub mosaic, akin to the habitats adjacent to the site to the north. This would provide a more diverse range of nesting and foraging habitats for birds than is currently available and so should provide some enhancement. Species likely to benefit include skylark, meadow pipit and reed bunting. These measures could provide potential nesting habitat for ground nesting raptors and owls (i.e. hen harrier and short-eared owl). However given the location of the site (i.e. not particularly remote from human activity) and the relatively small extent of the area it is unlikely either of these species would breed here. In addition, grazing management could be used to prevent the development of a long, rank sward and thus limit the build up of field vole numbers. This would help to avoid an increase in foraging activity in these species outwith the breeding season and therefore any associated increase in collision risk (although this would be minimal anyway as typical foraging flights are well below rotor swept height). and Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 9-9 Volume 2: Main Report

10 Assessment of Effects 9.77 This section takes into account the mitigation measures described in the previous section and hence is an assessment of residual impacts and effects Potential effects on designated sites are confined mainly to potential collision impact and are dealt with under the collision with turbines section below. Construction Effects: Displacement 9.79 Construction of the proposed wind farm is likely to extend over months. Construction activities may temporarily displace some birds using the site and surrounding areas, the level of impact depending on: The timing of potentially disturbing activities; The degree of displacement (spatially and temporally); The size, suitability and proximity of habitats available for displaced birds to occupy; and The capacity of alternative habitats to accommodate birds Disturbance impacts on birds due to construction activities of this type have not yet been quantified in the literature. This is largely as a result of two factors: (1) disturbance during construction is generally short-term and can be readily mitigated by avoiding sensitive areas and by timing construction outside certain periods where sensitive species are present; and (2) it is generally accepted that the more potentially significant effects on birds as a result of wind farms are related to operational disturbance and collision mortality and, therefore, most studies of wind farm - bird interactions concentrate on these issues It is likely that construction impacts will be greatest on species that are intolerant of noise and other sources of disturbance. Current evidence suggests that impacts on many common species will be relatively low because they are able to habituate to disturbance close to otherwise favourable habitats. Examples include waders such as oystercatcher, ringed plover and common sandpiper that occupy habitats associated with working opencast sites, and curlews which breed close to active opencast voids. Golden plover were recorded breeding within the working area of Farr Wind Farm in Northern Scotland during both breeding seasons when construction was being carried out27. At Hare Hill Wind Farm (Ayrshire) several species, including curlew, snipe and skylark, continued to breed onsite during construction28,29 and this was also observed to be the case for species such as oystercatcher, lapwing, snipe, curlew, skylark, meadow pipit and reed bunting at Minsca Wind Farm in Dumfries & Galloway While there is evidence to suggest that passerines and some wader species are tolerant of relatively high levels of disturbance, it is possible that some breeding pairs may be disturbed by construction activities at the site. A worst case scenario is that disturbance will result in a reduction in productivity (i.e. more nest failures/fewer young fledged) of some breeding pairs during the one or possibly two breeding seasons during which construction would be taking place. However, given the 27 L 2006: Lewis Wind Power Addendum to the Environmental Statement Shepherd, K. (2002) Hare Hill Windfarm New Cumnock, Ayrshire. Breeding Bird Monitoring Unpublished report to Scottish Power Plc, Glasgow. 29 Shepherd, K. (2003) Hare Hill Windfarm New Cumnock, Ayrshire. Breeding Bird Monitoring Unpublished report to Scottish Power Plc, Glasgow. 30 Entec (2009) Minsca Windfarm 2008 Breeding Bird Survey. Unpublished Report to Minsca Windfarm (Scotland) Ltd. temporary nature of this disturbance, it is unlikely that any long-term change in breeding bird populations would occur at the site and effect magnitude is considered to be Negligible. Operational Effects: Land-Take 9.83 The total land-take by access tracks, turbine bases, hard standings and ancillary structures will result in the permanent loss of approximately 7.9 ha of vegetation (see Table 4.1). Therefore the permanent loss of nesting and foraging habitat for birds will be a small proportion of the overall site (less than 1.4 %) and it is predicted that this will have little, if any, effect on bird populations. Magnitude of effect is therefore considered to be Negligible The forestry on site will be felled before turbines are erected. As a result there will be loss of woodland habitat for birds currently using this plantation. This is considered to be an effect of Medium magnitude, however the bird community using the plantation is considered to be of low importance due to the species remaining common and widespread and loss of this relatively small number of birds will not effect local or regional populations of these birds. Some birds are also likely to be able to find alternative nesting areas in nearby plantations. In addition, compensatory forest planting will take place off site to offset the loss of trees (see Chapter 13: Forestry). This will also compensate to some degree for the loss of nesting and foraging habitat on site. Operational Effects: Displacement 9.85 Published information (e.g. Vauk , Phillips , Percival & 2005, Devereux et al ) and reviews of impacts (e.g. Crockford , Benner et al , Winkelmann , Langston and Pullan , Hötker et al ) suggest that most birds are affected only slightly by the presence of operational wind farms. Studies have shown that breeding birds are not affected at distances greater than 300m from a turbine 18,39,40 ) and a synthesis of European work 38 discovered no statistically significant negative effect on any bird species population (including wader and passerine 31 Vauk, G. (1990) Biological and ecological study of the effects of construction and operation of wind power sites. Jahrgang/Sonderheft, Endbericht. Norddeutsche Naturschutzakemie, Germany. 32 Phillips, J.F. (1994) The effects of a windfarm on the upland breeding bird communities of Bryn Tytli, mid-wales: Unpublished report for National Windpower. 33 Devereux, C.L., Denny, J.H. & Whittingham, J. (2008) Minimal effects of wind turbines on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology doi: /j x 34 Crockford, N.J. (1992) A review of the possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. JN report no. 27, Peterborough. 35 Benner, J.H., Berkhuizen, J.C., de Graaf, J. and Postma, A. (1993) Impact of wind turbines on birdlife. Report no Consultants on Energy and the Environment, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 36 Winkelmann, J.E. (1994) Bird/wind turbine investigations in Europe. Proc. of the National Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting, Denver, Colorado, pp Benner, J.H., Berkhuizen, J.C., de Graaf, J. and Postma, A Impact of wind turbines on birdlife. Report no Consultants on Energy and the Environment, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 37 Langston, H.W. & Pullan, J., (2003) Wind farms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Birdlife International. 38 Hötker, H., Thomsen, K-M & Koster, H. (2006) The impact of renewable energy generation on biodiversity with reference to birds and bats facts, gaps in our knowledge, areas for further research and ornithological criteria for the expansion of renewables. NABU Report, Germany. 39 Percival, (1998) Birds and Turbines: managing potential planning issues. Proc. of the 20th BWEA Conference 1998, pp Percival, (2005) Birds and wind farms: what are the real issues? British Birds 98: Volume 2 : Main Report 9-10

11 species found at the proposed wind farm such as lapwing, skylark, meadow pipit and willow warbler) during the breeding season During a study of breeding birds at ten wind farms in England and Wales, no significant disturbance effects on passerines were observed 41. Indeed oystercatcher and golden plover have been recorded nesting within 70 cm and 40 m of turbine bases respectively 17,39. Shepherd 28, 29 reported little or no change in numbers of breeding red grouse, golden plover, snipe, curlew, skylark and stonechat between 2000 and 2003 at Hare Hill wind farm in Ayrshire following construction in This study also found no significant difference between years in distances of red grouse and skylark territories to the nearest wind turbine (these were the only two species for which statistical analyses were conducted). Langston and Pullan 37 reported the findings of a German study (Ketzenberg et al ) that also showed no effects on number or spatial distribution of skylark within 1 km of a wind farm. Studies from Spain have shown that passerine numbers are not negatively affected following wind farm construction 43 and further evidence comes from a recent study of winter farmland birds at two wind farm sites in East Anglia 33. This study looked at four functional groups (seed-eaters, corvids, gamebirds and larks) and quantified distribution in five 150 m distance bands from turbines (0-150 m to m) as well as examining the closest distance band in more detail to see if there was a difference in distribution between 0-75 m and m from turbines. The authors found no evidence to suggest that the distribution of wintering farmland birds (with the single exception of pheasant) was affected by wind turbines Recently published work by the RSPB 44 provides evidence of lower frequencies of occurrence of some species within the vicinity of wind turbines during the breeding season. The authors studied bird distribution at 12 existing wind farm sites in upland areas of the UK (nine in 2006 and three in 2007). Six visits were made to each site between mid April and the end of June based on the Brown & Shepherd (1993) methodology 45. A significant reduction in frequency of occurrence was found, compared to control sites, in seven of the 12 species studied: buzzard; hen harrier; golden plover; curlew; snipe; meadow pipit; and wheatear. The authors have extrapolated these findings to predict a percentage reduction in breeding densities within 500 m of turbines (on the assumption that their modelled habitat usage is proportional to breeding density). Species for which a significant effect was not found were kestrel, red grouse, lapwing, skylark, and stonechat Other recent work looking at distributions of waders at wind farm sites have found evidence that the declines in abundance predicted by Pearce-Higgins may not necessarily be realised. Douglas et al (2011; note that Pearce-Higgins is a co-author of this paper) 46 presented findings of monitoring at Beinn Tharsuinn wind farm (in the north of Scotland) and a control site. They found no significant 41 Thomas, (1999) Renewable Energy and Environmental Impacts in the UK; Birds and Wind Turbines. MRes thesis, University College London. 42 Ketzenberg, C., Exo, K.-, Reichenbach,, & Castor, (2002) Einfluss von Windkraftanlagen aufbrütende Wiesenvögel. Natur und Landschaft 77: De Lucas,, Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, (2005) A bird and small mammal BACI and IG design studies in a wind farm in Malpica (Spain). Biodiversity and Conservation 14: Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, (2009) The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology doi: /j x 45 Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K. (1993) A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study 40: Douglas, David J. T., Bellamy, Paul E. and Pearce-Higgins, James W.(2011) 'Changes in the abundance and distribution of upland breeding birds at an operational wind farm', Bird Study, 58: 1, difference in the change of abundance of golden plover between the wind farm site and the control (at both sites the numbers doubled between 2006 and 2009). Whitfield et al 47 studied the abundance and distribution of curlew at five wind farm sites and two reference sites in the UK, before and after construction. They found no evidence of immediate or gradual displacement even at 200 m proximity and assert that curlews are not sensitive to displacement by wind turbines A recent review of the effects of wind farms on upland raptors48 concluded that displacement of raptors as a result of wind farms appears to be negligible (most studies involved foraging birds) Hötker et al 38 report a negative effect on populations of non-breeding geese, golden plover and lapwing in terms of displacement but the distances involved are relatively limited medians of 300m for geese and 135m for golden plover and lapwing. Other species or groups for which data on displacement distances were available (but effects were not significant) included gulls with a median distance of 0-50m The above suggests that different effects can occur for different species using the same habitats and that different effects have been found within the same species at different sites. However, for most species found at the site it is likely that they will be able to continue breeding/foraging in close proximity to turbines or only be displaced a short distance. The turbines are to be located in the area currently covered by plantation forestry, as such the waders and passerines breeding in the open fields and the gulls foraging in these areas will be able to continue to do so largely unaffected by the scheme. Impact magnitude therefore is assessed to be Low. Operational Effects: Collision with Turbines 9.92 The level of collision will depend on the extent to which birds are displaced and the ability of birds to detect and manoeuvre around rotating turbine blades. Birds that collide with a turbine are likely to be killed or fatally injured The indications from studies published to date e.g are that collisions are rare events and occur mainly at sites where there are unusual concentrations of birds and turbines, or where the behaviour of the birds concerned leads to high-risk situations. Examples include migration flyways, areas where the food resource within the wind farm is exceptional, and wind wall turbine layouts. Recently published/publicised European information on collision mortality suggests that some species that occur in the UK may be exceptions to this general rule and may be susceptible to collision with turbines. These include red kites which have been recorded colliding in relatively high numbers in Germany49 and white-tailed eagles which have been recorded colliding with turbines in Norway50. The latter is undoubtedly linked to the location of the wind farm (in an area of high density of breeding white-tailed eagles) and work is currently on-going at this site to investigate long term effects. The relatively high number of red kite collisions in Germany is thought to be linked to positioning of turbines and greater prey availability in their vicinity than elsewhere. 47 Whitfield, P., Mick Green & Alan H. Fielding (2010). Are breeding Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata displaced by wind energy developments? Unpublished Report, Natural Research Projects Ltd, Banchory. 48 Madders, & Whitfield, P. (2006) Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis 148, Dürr, T. (2011) Vogelverluste an Windenergieanlagen in Deutschland. Daten aus der zentralen Fundkartei der Staatlichen Vogelschutzwarteim im Landesumweltamt Brandenburg. 50 Nygård, T., Bevanger, K., Dahl, E.L., Flagstad, Ø., Follestad, A., Hoel,P.L., May, & Reitan, O. (2010) A study of White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla movements and mortality at a wind farm in Norway. BOU Proceedings-Climate Change and Birds. ( Volume 2: Main Report

12 9.94 The passerines and waders nesting within the wind farm would be expected to be regularly flying between turbines and could therefore be expected to be most at risk of collision. However, the evidence suggests that these birds collide with turbines only infrequently, and most of the species concerned are of low or negligible nature conservation importance. Collision is therefore mainly considered in relation to species of high sensitivity, e.g. target raptor species and species not particularly manoeuvrable in flight, such as geese and swans 51. At the site the species considered for collision risk are whooper swan, pink-footed goose, greylag goose, barnacle goose, red kite, marsh harrier, hen harrier, goshawk, merlin, peregrine, golden plover and herring gull Hötker et al 38 produced a summary of all known European collision mortalities based on the work of Dürr and others. A summary of collisions, adapted from Hötker, in target species recorded in flight at the site is presented in Table 9.6. Table 9.6: Collisions of species found at the proposed wind farm as recorded in European,38 49 studies Species Whooper swan Country in which collision occurred Germany Norway Total collisions (individuals) European population ,000 21,000 (breeding pairs) Greylag goose Germany 3 120, ,000 (breeding pairs) >390,000 individuals (wintering individuals) Barnacle goose Germany 6 41,000 54,000 (breeding pairs) >370,000 individuals (wintering individuals) Red kite Germany (146) Sweden (12) UK (3) Spain (3) France (2) Denmark (1) Marsh harrier Germany (9) Spain (1) ,000 25,000 (breeding pairs) 10 93, ,000 (breeding pairs) Hen harrier Spain 1 32,000 59,000 (breeding pairs) >8,500 individuals (wintering individuals) Goshawk Germany 3 160, ,000 (breeding pairs) Merlin Germany (2) Norway (1) 3 31,000 49,000 (breeding pairs) >4,000 individuals (wintering individuals) Species Country in which collision occurred Peregrine Germany (4) Belgium (2) Spain (2) UK (1) Golden plover Germany (14) Norway (4) Netherlands Sweden Herring gull Belgium (797) Germany (38) UK (36) Netherlands (6) Sweden (2) Total collisions (individuals) European population ,000 25,000 (breeding pairs) , ,000 (breeding pairs) >820,000 individuals (wintering individuals) ,000 1,400,000 (breeding pairs), >800,000 (wintering individuals) Note: that species for which there are no published figures of collision mortalities are not included in this table With reference to Table 9.6, it can be seen that while most of the target species recorded in flight in the survey area have been found to collide with turbines, the numbers of individuals involved are insignificant compared to their European populations (especially when one considers that these numbers are cumulative, with records going back over ten and in some cases 20 years; the number of recorded collisions in any one year will be significantly less) and thus no population level effect will have occurred as a result SNH and Natural England (NE) guidance generally recommends that possible bird collisions at proposed wind farms are calculated using the model developed by W. Band4. Collision Risk Modelling (CRM), and particularly the Band model favoured by SNH/NE, has been the subject of considerable academic debate and comment regarding its relevance and usefulness (e.g. Chamberlain et al & , Madders & Whitfield , Drewitt & Langston , Fernley et al ). The main problem with CRM is factoring in accurate avoidance rates. The model is based upon the assumption that flights recorded during VP surveys prior to construction of turbines are representative of flights afterwards and that turbines are undetectable such that the likelihood of collision is reduced to the probability of a bird and turbine blade occupying the same point in space and time. Such a calculation invariably results in predicted rates of collision which are not borne out in practice once a wind farm is built, as birds undertake active avoidance of turbine blades. Broadly speaking however, CRM may be a useful technique for comparison of sites, assuming a reasonable level of flight activity 53 Chamberlain, E., Freeman, N., Rehfisch,, Fox, T. & Desholm, (2005). Appraisal of Scottish Natural Heritage s Wind Farm Collision Risk Model and its Application. BTO Research Report 401. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford. 54 Chamberlain, E., Rehfisch,, Fox, A.F., Desholm, M & Anthony, J. (2006). The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis 148, Madders, & Whitfield, P. (2006). Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis 148, Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Survey methods to assess wind farm impacts on upland bird communities. SNH, Battleby. 52 Population estimates from BirdLife International (2004) Birds in Europe Population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK 56 Drewitt, A.L & Langston, H.W. (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148, Fernley, J., Lowther, & Whitfield P A Review of Goose Collisions at Operating Wind Farms and Estimation of the Goose Avoidance Rate. Unpublished Report by West Coast Energy, Hyder Consulting and Natural Research. Volume 2 : Main Report 9-12

13 in each species that is modelled. However if very few flights are observed, or very little time is spent at collision risk height by a species, the results of the model become increasingly questionable and irrelevant as the flights recorded are likely to be chance use of the survey area or untypical behaviour rather than regularly repeated flight lines. At a Scottish Renewables Forum Seminar (2006) on CRM (attendees included Bill Band of SNH) there was no opposition to the contention that CRM is of very limited value for species recorded at collision height for very limited periods of time or very infrequently Target species activity at the proposed wind farm was very limited and the number of flights recorded at collision risk height even fewer in number. CRM would therefore predict very low levels of collision for all species and has not been carried out The number of reported whooper swan, greylag goose and barnacle goose collisions reported in Europe is very small and there are none for pink-footed goose. There were few flights across the site at CRH: one flight of 12 whooper swans, two flights of 5 and 16 barnacle geese, two flights of 23 and 28 pinkfooted geese in winter 2009/10 and two of 14 and 17 in 2010/11, and one flight of six greylag geese in 2009/10 (none of the greylag flights in 2010/11 passed over the turbine area at CRH). This low level of activity indicates that the risk of collision for all four species is likely to be very low. Impact magnitude is therefore predicted to be negligible Flight activity of target raptor species and golden plover was also very low, with single records of red kite and marsh harrier, three hen harrier flights, three goshawk flights (two of which involved the same bird), four merlin flights, six peregrine flights and three golden plover flights (involving 20, four and five birds) during the entire survey period. Given this low level of activity the risk of collision for these species is also predicted to be very low and impact magnitude negligible. It is acknowledged that the post construction habitats on site will differ substantially due to felling of the plantation. This could mean an increase in activity of some of these species; however current use is at such a low level that it is unlikely that there would be any substantial increase in activity Compared with numbers reported for other species recorded at the site, reported collisions of herring gulls in Europe are relatively high (although the numbers represent just 0.116% of the lowest population estimate). However the majority of these collisions are from two wind farm sites in Belgium (Brugge and Zeebrugge wind farms; Zeebrugge on the coast and nearby Brugge c.7km inland by a large canal) where there are large concentrations of breeding and roosting gulls and such high levels have not been reported elsewhere. It is likely that the mainly smaller turbines (compared to modern schemes) at these Belgian sites and the high gull numbers roosting/breeding in their vicinity mean that many more gulls fly at collision risk height there than at other sites. It is anticipated that the re-powering of Zeebrugge with a smaller number of larger turbines will result in a reduced mortality at this site 58,59. The differences between the Zebrugge and Brugge wind farms desctibed above and the proposed wind farm mean that similar collision levels are unlikely. At the proposed wind farm it is likely that collision levels will be much lower. During the breeding season and first winter ( ) herring gull activity on site was generally low with no regular movements of birds 58 Everaert, J. & Stienen E., 2007 Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium). Significant effect on breeding tern colony due to collisions. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: Everaert, J. (2008). Effecten van windturbines op de fauna in Vlaanderen : onderzoeksresultaten, discussie en aanbevelingen. Effects of wind turbines on fauna in Flanders - Study results, discussions and recommendations. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, 2008(44). Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek: Brussel : Belgium. 174 pp over the site; during the second winter ( ), there was higher use of the site by foraging birds. However this was mainly away from the turbine area and it is likely that birds would simply avoid flying through the turbine area and be able to continue to exploit the foraging resource in the surrounding fields as and when it becomes attractive due to farming activities (such as ploughing or muck spreading). Evidence of a reduction in gull flight activity through a turbine area following wind farm construction has been reported for Avonmouth Docks in south-west England where a considerable reduction in gull flight activity within the turbine area was noted post construction (Landmark Practice 2009 & 2010). It is possible that there would nevertheless be an occasional collision but this is likely to be at a very low level and would not be detectable against background mortality rates, which vary but seem to be around the 10-15% mark for adult birds 60. The regional population was estimated at 15,650 pairs in but there have been national declines of around 38% since then 60. A rare collision at the proposed wind farm would not be detectable against these background rates. Impact magnitude is therefore predicted to be Low This low level of predicted collisions means there is not likely to be any significant effect (in terms of the Habitats Regulations) on the nearby St Abbs Head to Fast Castle SPA. Collision with Electric Cables All electric cables on site will be underground, thus removing the risk of bird collisions. Therefore, there will be no additional risk of collision with overhead lines associated with the proposed wind farm. See Chapter 18: Potential Grid Connections for offsite considerations. Decommissioning Effects Turbine removal may cause disturbance to birds breeding and foraging within the development site. The level of impact will depend on the bird species present at the time of decommissioning and cannot be reliably predicted at this stage. However, it is likely that impact will be temporary, affecting one breeding season at most and, if necessary, similar mitigation measures to those described for the construction period would be employed. In view of this, the impacts are predicted to be low. Survey work should be commissioned prior to decommissioning of the proposed wind farm to identify any bird impacts that might be considered. Cumulative Effects It is possible that a series of wind farms could lead to an increased risk of collision as individual birds range across the area occupied by them. Alternatively, a number of individual birds could be displaced from several areas as a result of multiple wind farms There is no published guidance on how to carry out a cumulative assessment for birds and wind farms (SNH is currently in the process of drawing up guidance). Any such assessment would require to address a number of questions, for example: Within what distance of the proposed wind farm should other sites be considered? Should developments other than wind farms be considered? Should all schemes in the planning system be considered or only those consented or built? The situation is further complicated by differing survey periods and methodologies, especially for sites that have been in existence for many years and for which contemporary data may not be available. 60 JN (2011) Seabird Population Trends and Causes of Change: 2011 Report ( Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Updated April Accessed 21/07/ Volume 2: Main Report

14 While generally more of an issue for older wind farm applications, data on target species where these Table 9.8: Summary of Predicted Effects are highly protected birds such as Annex 1/Schedule 1 raptors that would be relevant to a cumulative impact assessment may also be contained within a confidential annex and therefore not available in the public domain. Effect Type of Effect Probability of Effect Occurring Nature Conservation Importance Magnitude of Effect Significance The main species of note that were recorded at the site for which cumulative impacts may occur due to their wide ranging behaviour were whooper swan, goose species, golden plover and target raptor species. Whooper swans, geese and golden plover travel considerable distances while on migration but it would be impossible to quantify with any accuracy the number of wind farms these birds may encounter while migrating over long distances. Therefore, in order to keep the assessment manageable, only those wind farms that are operational or consented and are located within a radius of 20km of the proposed wind farm have been considered further Three wind farms are operational within 20km of the proposed wind farm: Crystal Rig Wind Farm (85 turbines) and the adjacent Aikengall Community Wind Farm (19 turbines), approximately 12 and 11 km to the west of the site respectively and Black Hill Wind Farm (22 turbines) approximately 12 km to the south-south-west of the site. An additional four wind farms have been consented within the search area: Brockholes (3 turbines, c. 4 km south of the site), Drone Hill (22 turbines c. 0.5 km east of the site), Steps of Grace (1 turbine c. 21 km south-east of the site) and Presmains Farm (1 turbine c.7 km south-east of the site) Data for Crystal Rig, Drone Hill and Presmains Farm were unobtainable. However, some data were Table 9.7 available for the other schemes. Table 9.7 summarises this information. No species for which cumulative effects with Penmanshiel are likely were recorded at Brockholes or Steps of Grace. Other wind farm bird information Species Black Hill Aikengall Golden plover Small flocks of birds recorded during spring migration Recorded on one occasion during vantage point surveys (although these were only conducted during the breeding season) Peregrine Not recorded Recorded on at least one occasion from VP surveys It can be seen from the above that there is very little likelihood of a cumulative effect with Penmanshiel based on the data recorded for these wind farms. The data for these schemes are quite old, 1999 for Black Hill and 2004 for Aikengall, and it has not been possible to obtain data for Crystal Rig or Drone Hill. Notwithstanding this it is highly unlikely that if contemporary data were available for all of these schemes that there would be sufficient target species activity for a significant cumulative effect to be predicted given the relatively small number of schemes in such a wide area. Construction Changes to breeding bird populations as a result of disturbance Operation Collision of birds with overhead cables Loss of nesting habitat as a result of infrastructure land-take and tree felling Negative Unlikely Low Negligible- Low Negative Zero Negligible to Medium Negative Certain Low Negligible- Medium Level Negligible Rationale Evidence suggests that most species are tolerant of construction type disturbance plus any disturbance effects will be short lived and will have no measurable effect on populations in the long term None Negligible All electric cables on site will be underground. Minor The bird community using the plantation is of low importance and the relatively small numbers that will no longer be able to nest here will not affect local or regional populations. Some birds are likely to be able to find alternative nesting areas in nearby plantations. Assessment of Predicted Effects and Conclusions Table 9.8 summarises the ornithological effects of the proposed development and assesses their significance on the basis of the criteria set out in Tables Volume 2 : Main Report 9-14

15 Effect Type of Effect Probability of Effect Occurring Nature Conservation Importance Magnitude of Effect Significance Effect Type of Probability Nature Magnitude Effect of Effect Conservation of Effect Occurring Importance Significance Displacement of birds due to disturbance Collision with turbines by wildfowl Negative Likely Low to Medium Level Rationale Low Negligible There is evidence to suggest that some species are prone to displacement from the vicinity of turbines in some situations. However, most of the target species present at the site are not subject to significant displacement from operational wind turbines. If displacement were to occur it would only be over a short distance and involve a small number of birds. Negative Unlikely Low Negligible Negligible Reported collision rates for swan and geese species in Europe are very low, and there is evidence to suggest that geese avoid wind turbines. In addition, flight activity at the proposed site was low. Thus collision is unlikely. Collision with turbines by herring gulls Collision with turbines by waders Level Negative Unlikely Medium Low Minor Negative Unlikely Low Negligible Negligible Rationale During the breeding season herring gull activity on site was low, while during the winter, there was some use of the site by foraging birds. Birds are likely to be able to continue using the site in much the same way as they currently do. While occasional collisions may occur, they will not be detectable against background mortality rates. Use of the site by wader species was very low and reported levels of collisions (in Europe) for species recorded on site are low. Collision risk is therefore negligible. Collision with turbines by Schedule 1 raptors Negative Unlikely Low Negligible Negligible Use of the site by Schedule 1 raptors was very low and reported levels of collisions (in Europe) for species recorded on site are generally low. Collision risk is therefore negligible Volume 2: Main Report

16 Effect Type of Effect Probability of Effect Occurring Nature Conservation Importance Magnitude of Effect Significance Effect Type of Effect Probability of Effect Occurring Nature Conservation Importance Magnitude of Effect Significance Level Rationale Level Rationale Collision with turbines by passerine species Cumulative Effects Decommissioning Negative Unlikely Low Negligible Negligible Although some of the passerines that occur at the site may occasionally collide with turbines, these species are mostly very common both regionally and nationally. Moreover, most passerines have high reproductive rates and also a high level of baseline mortality. As such, the result of the death of one bird is likely to leave a vacant territory for another or temporarily reduce competition, meaning that there will be no long term population effect even at site level. Negative Unlikely Negligible to Medium Low Negligible A relatively small number of built or consented schemes within the surrounding 20km and evidence available suggests that combined use by target species would be limited. Destruction of nests or disturbance during decommissioning Summary and Conclusions Negative Likely Likely to be Negligible to Low Likely to be Low Likely to be Negligible Although the effects of decommissioning cannot be accurately predicted at this stage it is considered that any impacts will be temporary in nature and with suitable mitigation in place are likely to be of low magnitude Sixteen months of bird surveys were carried out at the proposed wind farm site between December 2009 and March 2011 comprising vantage point watches, winter walkover surveys and breeding bird territory mapping surveys The range of species breeding at the site was typical of the habitat, which is predominantly farmland and coniferous woodland, and included widespread passerines such as chaffinch, robin, willow warbler, coal tit and goldcrest. Notable breeding passerine species included yellowhammer, skylark and song thrush A similar range of species was recorded during both winters; relatively low numbers of birds were observed with the exception of woodpigeon, linnet, chaffinch, fieldfare and corvid flocks. Species such as these are predicted to continue to use the site following construction Target species flight activity was limited to small numbers of Schedule 1 raptors and owls (red kite, marsh harrier, hen harrier, goshawk, merlin, peregrine and barn owl), golden plover and, during the winter, wildfowl (whooper swan, pink-footed goose, greylag goose and barnacle goose). The number of birds flying over the turbine area at collision risk height was very low and the risk of collision is predicted to be low Herring gull was recorded on site throughout the year. During the breeding season and first winter ( ), herring gull activity on site was generally low, but site use increased during the second winter ( ) when birds used fields within and around the site for foraging/loafing. It is likely that herring gulls will be able to continue to use the site in much the same way as currently. While there may be an occasional collision this is predicted to be a rare event and would not be detectable against background mortality rates No significant effects are predicted as a result of constructing and operating the proposed wind farm either alone or in combination with other nearby schemes. Volume 2 : Main Report 9-16

17 N N PENMANSHIEL WIND FARM VP VP 11 FIGURE 9.1 VIEOINT LOCATIONS VP1 VP1 REPRODUCED FROM SURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA CROWN COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS ERVE LICENCE NUMBER VP2 VP2 Key Site boundary 2km buffer around site boundary Wind turbine location Site tracks (upgraded) Site tracks (new excavated) Control building & substation compound Meteorological mast location (permanent lattice type) including temporary hardstanding (taken from Drawing 01711D ) 10m telecoms mast Watercourse crossing Crane hard standing area Permanent Temporary VP VP 22 Temporary passing places & turning heads Temporary construction Temporary enabling works compound/ wheel wash Site entrance location Viewpoint location winter Viewpoint location winter 2010/2011 LAYOUT DWG T-LAYOUT NO. DRAWING NUMBER E014WOR PANNG SCALE- 1:20,000 ENVIRONMENTAL ATEMENT THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYEMS LT AND NO REPRODUION MAY BE MADE IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION

18 N N PENMANSHIEL WIND FARM FIGURE 9.2 WINTER 2009/2010 TARGET SPECIES FLIGHTS REPRODUCED FROM SURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA CROWN COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS ERVE LICENCE NUMBER Key Site boundary Wind turbine location Height Non collision risk height Collision risk height (40-130m) Species Barnacle goose Curlew Goshawk Greylag goose Golden plover Hen harrier Peregrine Pink-fotted goose Snipe Whooper Note: Site Infrastructure definitions shown on Figure 9.1 LAYOUT DWG T-LAYOUT NO. DRAWING NUMBER E015WOR PANNG SCALE- 1:20,000 ENVIRONMENTAL ATEMENT THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYEMS LT AND NO REPRODUION MAY BE MADE IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION

19 N N PENMANSHIEL WIND FARM FIGURE 9.3 WINTER 2010/2011 TARGET SPECIES FLIGHTS REPRODUCED FROM SURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA CROWN COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS ERVE LICENCE NUMBER Key Site boundary Wind turbine location Height Outside collision risk height range Collision risk height range (40-130m) Species Pink-footed goose Greylag goose Red kite Goshhawk Merlin Note: Site Infrastructure definitions shown on Figure 9.1 LAYOUT DWG T-LAYOUT NO. DRAWING NUMBER E016WOR PANNG SCALE- 1:20,000 ENVIRONMENTAL ATEMENT THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYEMS LT AND NO REPRODUION MAY BE MADE IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION

20 N N PENMANSHIEL WIND FARM FIGURE 9.4 BREEDING SEASON 2010 TARGET SPECIES FLIGHTS REPRODUCED FROM SURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA CROWN COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS ERVE LICENCE NUMBER Key Site boundary Wind turbine location Height Non collision risk height Collision risk height (40-130m) Species Curlew Golden Plover Marsh harrier Peregrine Note: Site Infrastructure definitions shown on Figure 9.1 LAYOUT DWG T-LAYOUT NO. DRAWING NUMBER E017WOR PANNG SCALE- 1:20,000 ENVIRONMENTAL ATEMENT THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYEMS LT AND NO REPRODUION MAY BE MADE IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION

21 N N GT GT GT GT GT WR WR WR WR WR WR BREEDING TERRITORY LOCATIONS 2010 BT BT BT BT BT BT FIGURE 9.5 PENMANSHIEL WIND FARM REPRODUCED FROM SURVEY DIGITAL MAP DATA CROWN COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS ERVE LICENCE NUMBER Key Site boundary MP MP MP Wind turbine location BTO code Species Blackbird Blackcap Blue tit Chiffchaff Chaffinch Coal tit Dunnock Goldcrest Great tit Mistle thrush Meadow pipit Robin Skylark Siskin Song thrush Whitethroat Woodpigeon Wren Willow warbler Yellowhammer BC BT GT MP WH WR Note: Site Infrastructure definitions shown on Figure 9.1 LAYOUT DWG T-LAYOUT DRAWING NUMBER E018WOR PANNG SCALE- 1:15,000 ENVIRONMENTAL ATEMENT THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYEMS LT AND NO REPRODUION MAY BE MADE IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION